The Docket · Government Meeting · DKT-2026-001521

On the agenda: Daleville meeting — data center (Jul 13)

Past ⚠ Agenda Watch Daleville, Virginia · Monday, July 13, 2026 — 2 months ago

About this record

The published agenda for this July 13 meeting contains: "data center". The meeting has passed; the record and its outcome live here permanently.

WhenMonday, July 13, 2026
Check the agenda document for the meeting time.

WhereDaleville, Virginia

Money$24,680 was at stake

On the record“data center”

The agenda, word for word

Government public record — the full text of the published document, archived September 1, 2026. Gold highlighting of key terms is ours, not the original’s. Read the original document ↗

75 pages · scroll to read

Page 1 of 75

Botetourt County Planning Commission
Work Session Packet
Regular Session
July 13, 2026

Page 2 of 75

Botetourt County
Planning Commission Agenda for
Work Session
57 S. Center Drive, Daleville, Virginia
July 13, 2026, 5:00 PM
1. PZ Work Plan
2. Discussion of Water Supply Planning
3. Virtual Field Review
4. Recess until 6:00 PM, July 13, 2026 for Planning Commission meeting.
There will be no opportunity for public comment.

It is the intention of Botetourt County to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in all respects. If, as an attendee or participant at this meeting, you need special
assistance beyond what is normally provided, Botetourt County will attempt to accommodate you in a reasonable manner. Please contact us at (540.928.2080 or
[email protected]) at least 72 hours prior to the meeting to inform us of your particular needs and advise us at that time if you will need accommodations to attend
or participate in meetings on a regular basis.

Page 3 of 75

BOTETOURT COUNTY
Department of Community Development

MEMORANDUM
TO:

Members of the Botetourt County Planning Commission

FROM: Nicole Pendleton, Director of Community Development
DATE: June 23, 2026
RE:
Community Development Work Program — Request for Planning Commission
Review and Endorsement

Purpose
This memorandum presents the Community Development Department’s current and
upcoming work program for the Planning Commission’s review and endorsement. The
substantial majority of this program is either directed by the Board of Supervisors, required
by state or federal law, or already under contract with an outside consultant. To make the
workflow clear, the program is organized in three tiers: work already authorized and
underway (Tier 1), amendments coming to the Board for authorization in July (Tier 2), and the
concurrent major workstreams the Department is carrying alongside the amendments (Tier
3). Endorsing the program gives the Commission and staff a shared, agreed set of priorities,
confirms that the County’s key land use and infrastructure questions — including water supply
planning — are already being addressed through the appropriate channels, and provides a
clear basis for sequencing any new request against existing commitments.

Tier 1 — Authorized Text Amendments (In the Work Program Now)
The following zoning text amendments are active items in the Department’s work program.
Each has already been authorized by a formal vote of the Board of Supervisors. Each requires
staff research, drafting, county attorney review, usually entails one or multiple Planning
Commission work sessions, a Planning Commission public hearing, and a Board of
Supervisors public hearing before adoption. A single amendment is easily a multi-month
effort, and generally longer.
Text Amendment

Date of BOS
Authorization

Scope

Status

Priority

Battery Storage (BESS) /
Utility Definition

October 2025

Modernization and
cleanup of outdated
code language

Drafting underway

July 2006

Remove private road
standards from the
ordinance

Not started

Private Roads

Page 4 of 75

Text Amendment

Date of BOS
Authorization

Scope

Status

Priority

Gateway Crossing Roads

Road standards within
the Gateway Crossing
Overlay District

Not Started

Telecommunications /
Broadband

November 2018

Update outdated
provisions that are no
longer compliant with
state and federal law

Not started

April 2025

Add use and operating
standards for food
trucks operating in
Botetourt County

Draft Completed
In PC / BOS review

Floodplain

January 2025

Update outdated
provisions to current
FEMA and state
regulatory standards;
current code is not
compliant

In progress

Offsite / Industrial Signs

February 2026

Update sign standards

Draft Completed
In PC / BOS review

March 2026

Add use and operating
standards of Youth
Transitional Residential
Facilities

Draft Completed
In PC / BOS review

May 2026

Zoning ordinance —
under Berkley Group
contract (WO 6); driven
by upcoming changes
to state code

Drafting underway

May 2026

Comprehensive plan
policy — under Berkley
Group contract (WO 6);
driven by upcoming
changes to state code

Drafting underway

Mobile Food Vendors

Youth Transitional
Residential Facility

Solar / Renewable
Energy - Zoning

Solar / Renewable
Energy – Comp Plan

Note: Specific Board initiation dates and resolution numbers for each item are maintained in the Department’s
ordinance file and the Clerk’s resolution log and can be provided on request.

Tier 2 — Amendments Coming to the Board for Authorization (July 2026)
Beyond the items already authorized, the following text amendments are scheduled for the
Board of Supervisors’ consideration in July 2026, at which point the Board will decide whether
to authorize them to proceed. If authorized, each will follow the same multi-step process
described above and will join the Department’s active work program.

Page 5 of 75

Item

Status

Gateway Crossing Text
Amendments

Owner-initiated application; filed and paid for. To be considered
by the Board of Supervisors in July 2026 for authorization to
proceed to public hearing in August.

Townhome / Patio Home
Amendments

Amendments to reduce the number of permitted attached units.
To be considered by the Board of Supervisors in July 2026 for
authorization to proceed to public hearing in August.

Tier 3 — Concurrent Major Workstreams
Alongside the text amendments above, staff and the Commission are carrying the following
significant, Board-supported or legally required workstreams:
Anticipated
Completion

Workstream

Description

Comprehensive Plan - Solar
Update

Adopted in whole November 2025; the only
component still in development is the solar /
renewable energy policy, drafted by Berkley Group
under Work Order 6 and driven by upcoming
changes to state code

Fall 2026

Water Supply Planning

Staff participation ongoing regarding growth
projections and regional capacity coordinated with
the Western Virginia Water Authority and the
Roanoke Valley–Alleghany Regional Commission

2029

Land Use Ordinances
Diagnostic

Funded for FY27; work to begin 1Q; Contracted with
Berkley Group (Work Order 4, $24,680); zoning +
subdivision diagnostic against Title 15.2, Ch. 22;
Land Use Policy report and joint BOS/PC work
session

2027

Cloudpermit System Launch

Permitting platform replacement; public launch
targeted late 2026

Fall 2026

Development Review (ongoing)

Site plans, subdivisions, and building permits
subject to statutory deadlines

N/A

Daily Operations (ongoing)

Responding to citizens inquiries, meeting requests,
phone calls, emails, etc.

N/A

Zoning Code Enforcement
(ongoing)

Taking complaints, investigating, determining
violations, sending out notices, and—as a final
measure—attending court.

N/a

Private Infrastructure Bonding

Code review and bonding policy / forms update

N/A

Two of these workstreams—the Land Use Ordinances Diagnostic and the BESS and Solar
policy and regulatory amendments—are already under contract with an outside consultant,
the Berkley Group, on Board-approved work orders with defined schedules and deliverables.
This illustrates how the County addresses identified ordinance needs: through authorized

Page 6 of 75

engagements that move on a planned timeline and follow the required review process, rather
than through items added outside that framework.

Where Water Supply Planning Sits
Because water supply and the County’s capacity to support growth are of clear community
interest, it is worth stating plainly where that work already lives. The County’s Comprehensive
Plan, adopted in November 2025, sets the long-range land use and utility policy framework.
Water supply planning, growth projections, and regional capacity are carried forward through
the County’s ongoing coordination with the Western Virginia Water Authority and the
Roanoke Valley–Alleghany Regional Commission. Questions involving regional distribution
and infrastructure are the responsibility of the Western Virginia Water Authority as the
regional water authority, and matters involving economic-development agreements and
their associated costs are handled by County Administration and the Board of Supervisors.
These channels are active and are the appropriate venues for that work; staff is glad to
provide the Commission a briefing on water-supply planning.

Anticipated Timeline
The following reflects the general sequencing of the program. Several items move in parallel,
and consultant-supported and statutory deadlines anchor the schedule.
Timeframe

Anticipated activity

Now – Summer 2026

Board of Supervisors to consider authorizing the Gateway Crossing and
townhome/patio home text amendments in July; Berkley Group BESS &
Solar drafting (staff review by August 3, 2026); Land Use Ordinances
Diagnostic; Floodplain, Sign, Gateway Crossing, and STR amendments in
progress; Cloudpermit build-out.

Fall 2026

Mobile Food Vendor amendment through final BOS action; BESS & Solar
drafts to Planning Commission review; diagnostic Land Use Policy report
and joint BOS/PC work session; Cloudpermit public launch.

Winter 2026 – 2027

BESS & Solar to public hearing and adoption; diagnostic findings used to
prioritize remaining amendments (Private Roads & Telecommunications);
Board direction sets sequence for any additional items.

How Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan Work Is Initiated
Under the Botetourt County Zoning Ordinance and the Code of Virginia, there is an
established process for initiating amendments to the ordinance text and the comprehensive
plan. This process is not a formality; it ensures that work is properly authorized, prioritized
against existing commitments, and supported by the resources required to complete it
correctly.
•

Text amendments (§ 25-581.1): The Board of Supervisors or the Planning
Commission — acting as a body, by resolution or by vote — may initiate a zoning text
amendment. The amendment then proceeds through the Commission and returns to
the Board for final action.

Page 7 of 75

•

Comprehensive plan amendments (§ 25-581.4): An amendment is initiated by the
Board of Supervisors, on its own motion or upon a petition the Board has approved,
and is then referred to the Commission for study and public hearing.

When a new ordinance or comprehensive plan initiative is proposed, the appropriate step is
for the full Commission to consider it as a body and, where warranted, to initiate it or
recommend that the Board do so. The Board, which sets the Department’s priorities and
resources, then determines where the new work falls relative to the commitments described
above. This process ensures that new work is properly authorized, prioritized against existing
commitments, and supported by the resources required to complete it correctly.

Requested Action
Staff requests that the Planning Commission review and endorse this work program as the
Department’s current set of authorized priorities. Endorsement does not bind the Commission
on any individual application or amendment; it confirms a shared understanding of what is
already underway and the channels through which the County’s land use and infrastructure
questions — including water supply planning — are being addressed.
With the program endorsed, any proposal to add a new ordinance or comprehensive plan
initiative can be brought to the full Commission and, where required, referred to the Board of
Supervisors for prioritization against these commitments. This keeps staff effort aligned with
the Board’s direction, protects the statutory deadlines governing much of the existing
caseload, and ensures that each item the County takes on receives the attention it requires
to be done well.
I am glad to walk through any item in greater detail and to provide the specific initiation dates
and resolution references for any amendment the Commission would like to review.
Respectfully submitted,
Nicole Pendleton
Director of Community Development

Page 8 of 75

Botetourt County Planning Commission
Agenda Packet
Regular Session
July 13, 2026

Page 9 of 75

Botetourt County
Planning Commission Agenda
57 S. Center Drive, Daleville, Virginia
July 13, 2026, 6:00 PM
Anyone interested in addressing the Planning Commission must complete a “Request to Speak” form and give it to
Staff before the meeting begins. Forms are located with the agendas and at Planning Staff’s table. When your name
is called, please go to a microphone or to the podium. Please state your name and address before making your
comments. Each person will have one opportunity to speak regarding per public hearing on this agenda. All
comments must pertain to a public hearing shown below and directed to the Planning Commission members.
Comments made to or from the audience during testimony or commission deliberation are not permitted.
Recognized speakers and the audience must be courteous at all times. A time limit of three minutes per speaker
(unless otherwise provided for by a majority of the Planning Commission members present) will be observed. All cell
phones must be set on the mute or silence mode.

Administrative Business

A. The Planning Commission will meet Monday, August 10, 2026, at 5:00 PM for a field review and work
session.
B. Review and approval of April 13, 2026 minutes.
C. Review and approval of May 11, 2026 minutes.

D. Review and approval of June 2, 2026 Closed Session Minutes
E. Review and Approval of June 8, 2026 Regular Session Minutes
F. Review and Approval of June 23, 2026 Joint Planning Commission/Board of Supervisors minutes
2.

Public Hearings

Adjourn

A. Amsterdam District: Fralin & Waldron Inc. request a Special Exception Permit for a medical care facility
(vision care), with possible conditions, in the Traditional Neighborhood District Use District. This 0.876acre parcel is located on Town Center Street (State Route 1189), adjacent to 70 Broad Street, Daleville,
and identified on the Tax Maps as Section 88(10)2B.
B. The Botetourt County Board of Supervisors propose text amendments to revise various sections of
Chapter 25, Zoning of the Botetourt County Code that would amend standards of the sign ordinance
by defining and adding an “Industrial Park Directory” sign type.
C. Amsterdam District: The Western Virginia Water Authority requests a commission permit, in
accordance with Section 15.2232 of the Code of Virginia and Section 25-576 – Commission Permit (“2232
Review”) of the Botetourt County Code, for a capital improvements project involving the construction
of approximately 3,800 feet of waterline that will loop two existing water lines and provide more
consistent water pressure/service within the existing system. This project is located within the rightof-way of Etzler Dr (State Rt. 672) and Victoria Rd. (State Rt. 1050) and identified on the Tax Maps as
Section88-20H and 88-20WTR.

Page 10 of 75

AGENDA ITEM 1.B.

Minutes for the April 13, 2026, Regular Session of the
Botetourt County Planning Commission

Page 11 of 75

Dr. Leffel opened the April 13, 2026, Botetourt County Planning Commission field review and work session
to order at 5:00 PM in the Botetourt County Administration Center.
PRESENT:

Dr. Elizabeth Leffel, Chair,
Mr. Sam Foster, Vice-Chair,
Mr. Tim Lucas, Member,
Mr. Steve Hartman, Member,
Mr. Mark Tyson, Member,
Mr. Mike Lockaby, County Attorney,
Mr. Brandon Nicely, ex-officio member,
Mr. David Moorman, Deputy County Administrator,
Mr. Kyle Rosner, Director Economic Development,
Mr. Jon McCoy, Planning Supervisor,
Mr. Matthew Lindsay, Planner,
Mr. Jude Wilson, Planner,
Mrs. Laura Goad, Administrative Assistant

ABSENT:

Mrs. Nicole Pendleton, Director of Community Development

Dr. Leffel called the work session to order at 5:00 PM.
Dr. Leffel motioned to approve the work session agenda. Mr. Foster seconded the motion, which was
approved 5:0:0:0 with the following vote:
AYE:
NAY:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:

Mr. Foster, Dr. Leffel, Mr. Lucas, Mr. Hartman, Mr. Tyson
None
None
None

Mr. McCoy stated that Mr. Rosner was present to discuss information from the Economic Development
Authority.
For the field review, Mr. Wilson discussed the upcoming Nicely request for a Special Events venue on the
northern end of the county. He displayed their property on PowerPoint, and noted their application
projected four to five weddings per month. He noted the existing home would become a short-term rental
for the couple to be married, and all weddings would be held outside.
Mr. Lucas confirmed a maximum of 50 attendees, and applicants would use outside tents.
Mr. Hartman wanted to know if the short-term rental was for overnight weddings.
Mr. Wilson explained it could be the honeymoon location or it could be for any type of special event.
Mr. McCoy stated there could be a condition contingent on a Short-Term Rental permit. He further stated
that Staff worked with the applicant on the concept plan, which they approved. Mr. McCoy also discussed
parking areas that would be gravel.

Page 12 of 75

Mr. McCoy brought up upcoming convenience store and grocery store applications, mentioning it was
possible for them to be on the May agenda. He said we were waiting on the Traffic Impact Analysis for
each, and that the trip generation triggered each TIA.
Mr. McCoy and Mr. Lindsay then discussed the signage text amendment. Mr. Lindsay stated that the Board
of Supervisors authorized Staff to research and update commercial and industrial ordinances. He
displayed the EastPark sign, as he noted it was currently nonconforming. He said the ordinance currently
included industrial or commerce directory signs. Mr. Lindsay brought up that there was a lot of interest in
pole signs, but placement limited to the sign location of being within 1,000 feet of an interstate exit. He
said the ordinance currently titled them as a pole or pole mounted sign. He then displayed a slide depicting
the 1,000 feet radius for pole signs.
When Mr. Lucas stated that he did not want to see pole signs get larger or taller, Mr. McCoy commented
that he did not envision raising the height.
After questioning from Mr. Hartman, Mr. Lindsay explained the difference between a pole sign and
billboard. He further explained that a billboard, was an off-premise sign and off-premise signs were not
allowed.
Dr. Leffel wanted to know how to handle nonconforming signs.
Mr. McCoy said that similar to a nonconforming structure, nonconforming signs could not be repaired if
the repair costs exceeded 50% of the value of the sign.
Regarding Mr. Lucas’ questions about billboards, Mr. Lindsay said that billboards could be replaced, but
the structure could not. He then presented a slide on factors to consider, as he encouraged questions or
thoughts.
Commissioner Tyson expressed concerns over communication to staff of the Department of Community
Development. Commissioner Leffel asserted those concerns were unfounded, but asked Mr. Tyson to
direct his questions to her and that she would convey them to Planning staff.
Mr. Tyson presented a question about billboards.
Mr. McCoy explained the ordinance had different sign types in different use districts, noting that other
sign types such as monument signs were smaller.
Mr. Tyson asked when they would debate because he said he was only getting a snapshot; he said he
needed a discourse, and there was not sufficient time to review.
Regarding the food truck text amendment, Mr. Foster stated the Planning Commission had several
meetings in the past about food trucks in the past.
Dr. Leffel explained that the food truck text amendment was an ongoing topic that the Planning
Commission had discussed quite a bit. She further explained that when she first came on board, there
were items that had been discussed prior to her arrival.
Mr. Lucas expressed there should be a way to keep nonconforming signs looking nice, and Mr. Tyson

Page 13 of 75

agreed.
After further discussion, Mr. McCoy talked about the next steps, where he would ask Mr. Lindsay to review
the ordinance to make sure it was meeting code, and he would also check with some property owners.
Mr. Lockaby stated there were some changes to the First Amendment law.
Dr. Leffel asked if anyone had Other Business.
Mr. Tyson brought up the current procedure where Planning produced the information package.
After further discussion, at 5:57 PM, Mr. Foster motioned to recess until the 6:00 PM Planning Commission
public hearing, which was seconded by Mr. Hartman, and unanimously approved 5:0:0:0 with the
following recorded vote:
AYE:
NAY:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:

Mr. Foster, Dr. Leffel, Mr. Lucas, Mr. Hartman, Mr. Tyson
None
None
None

Dr. Leffel reconvened the April 13, 2026, Botetourt County Planning Commission to order at 6:02 PM in
the Botetourt County Administration Center.
PRESENT:

Dr. Elizabeth Leffel, Chair,
Mr. Sam Foster, Vice-Chair,
Mr. Tim Lucas, Member,
Mr. Steve Hartman, Member
Mr. Mark Tyson, Member
Mr. Mike Lockaby, County Attorney
Mr. Brandon Nicely, ex-officio member,
Mr. Jon McCoy, Planning Supervisor,
Mr. Matthew Lindsay, Planner
Mr. Jude Wilson, Planner
Ms. Sarah Showalter, Intern
Mrs. Laura Goad, Administrative Assistant

ABSENT:

Mrs. Nicole Pendleton, Director of Community Development

After Dr. Leﬀel reconvened the meeting and welcomed those in attendance, she introduced Staﬀ and
Planning Commission members, as she noted that anyone wishing to speak should complete a “Request
to Speak” form and give it to a Staﬀ member. Dr. Leﬀel then reviewed the following procedures: “Staff
will read the agenda item and present information to the Planning Commission. I will then ask the
applicant or their representative to come forward for their presentation. There may be questions and
comments from the Planning Commission. Afterwards, public comments will be taken. Anyone interested

Page 14 of 75

in addressing the Planning Commission must complete this “Request to Speak” form and give it to staff
before the meeting begins. Forms are located with the agendas and on the Planning staff’s table.
•

When your name is called, please go to a microphone or to the podium. Please state your name
and address before making your comments.

•

Each person will have one opportunity to speak per public hearing on this agenda. If you have a
question, please direct it to the Commission, who in turn will ask the applicant. Debate between
a recognized speaker and the audience is not allowed.

•

All comments must pertain to a public hearing on the agenda and directed to the Planning
Commission members.

•

Comments made to or from the audience are not permitted.

•

A time limit of three minutes per speaker will be observed.

•

The Planning Commission welcomes and appreciates public participation. Hearing from our
residents helps us better understand the community’s perspectives and concerns.

•

During the public comment period, citizens are invited to share their views with the Commission.
Comments will be included in the public record and considered as part of our review process. To
ensure that everyone has a fair opportunity to speak and that the meeting can proceed efficiently,
the Commission will listen respectfully but will not engage in debate or respond to questions
during the public comment period. Repeated comments or comments that are unrelated to the
solar facility request will not be allowed.

•

Under Virginia law, the Planning Commission’s role is to review land use matters and make
recommendations to the Board of Supervisors. In doing so, the Commission is expected to
evaluate proposals based on the County’s adopted Comprehensive Plan, applicable County
ordinances, and sound land-use planning principles. Our responsibility is to consider how each
proposal fits within those adopted policies and regulations.

•

While individual comments may not receive an immediate response during the meeting, they are
an important part of the public record and help inform the Commission’s discussion and
recommendations to the Board of Supervisors.

Page 15 of 75

Dr. Leffel noted that the Planning Commission would meet at the Botetourt County Administration
Building on Monday, May 11, 2026, at 5:00 PM for field review and work session.
Amsterdam District: James R. & Karleen J. Fringer request a rezoning from Agricultural, A-1 to Rural
Residential, RR, with possible proffered conditions on a parcel located at 423 Haymakertown Road
(State Route 666), and is identified on the Tax Maps as Section 71-39.
Mr. Lindsay read the legal advertisement aloud, and displayed the zoning and aerial maps on PowerPoint.
He stated all properties north, east, south, and west were Agricultural, A-1. Mr. Lindsay further stated the
proposed rezoning to Rural Residential reduced the property to 1.5 acres with 125 feet of road frontage
on the state-maintained road; would preserve the maximum amount of acreage for the parent farm parcel;
single-family residential development was a permitted use by right in both the A-1 and RR districts;
therefore, the nature of the land use remained consistent with the existing zoning. He noted the site was
about 1.25 miles from the Roanoke Cement Plant. He said the Comprehensive Plan designated this area
as Agricultural, and while the Comprehensive Plan generally discouraged higher densities, Staﬀ found that
the 1.5-acre lot size maintained the low-density residential character of the immediate vicinity. Mr. Lindsay
displayed the proposed Boundary Line Adjustment to separate the parcels. He mentioned that their goals
could be achieved by a conventional subdivision, however, applicants opted for this rezoning to Rural
Residential to minimize the size of the residential lot to 1.5 acres, thereby preserving the maximum
amount of acreage for the parent farm parcel. Mr. Lindsay noted that no public comments had been
received.
The applicants were present and did not wish to speak.
Mr. Tyson stated he was confused because he said he didn’t understand why keeping the A-1 zoning was
not agreeable to them.
Mr. Fringer responded that they would have to move the fence line and they would lose pasture.
Mr. Lindsay explained the option was possible although the applicants wanted to retain as much of their
agricultural property as possible.
After questioning from Mr. Lucas, Mr. Fringer stated that the cattle would cattle would lose access to the
ﬁeld with the pond on it. He further stated the proposed property line was the fence line.
Mr. Tyson conﬁrmed that they owned both properties.
When Mr. Lucas explained the diﬃculties of moving the fence line, Mr. Tyson responded, “So what?”.
Mr. Lindsay reiterated the intent was to sell 1.5 acres of the smaller parcel, so they could maintain as
much property as possible for their cattle.
Mr. Tyson asked about a family subdivision, and Mr. Lindsay detailed the part of the ordinance that
necessitated the property to go to a family member, as deﬁned by code, who would be required to keep
the property for a minimum of three years before legally selling it to a nonfamily member.
Dr. Leﬀel opened the public hearing.

Page 16 of 75

There being no one else to speak, Dr. Leﬀel closed the public hearing.
Mr. Tyson said he had no further comment.
Mr. Lucas stated that he saw the need to divide the property, particularly for water access.
Dr. Leﬀel stated that she understood the fencing issue because fencing was so expensive.
Mr. Foster stated that he had nothing else to add, as did Mr. Hartman.
Mr. Tyson said the agricultural code had minimum sizes for a reason, and this was a loophole, as he
asked how this was fair to others in the same circumstance.
Dr. Leﬀel stated this was not a loophole, it was due process, and the Planning Commission’s decision was
whether or not to recommend approval.
Mr. Hartman motioned to recommend approval on the Rural Residential rezoning, seconded by Mr. Foster,
which was approved 4:1:0:0 with the following recorded vote by roll call:
AYE:
NAY:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:

Mr. Foster, Dr. Leffel, Mr. Lucas, Mr. Hartman,
Mr. Tyson
None
None

Dr. Leﬀel stated that the motion carried and the public hearing had concluded.
The Botetourt County Board of Supervisors propose text amendments to revise various sections of
Chapter 25 Zoning Ordinance to authorize the placement and operation of mobile food trucks as a byright use in the Business and Shopping Center Use Districts, Industrial Use Districts, Traditional
Neighborhood District (non-residential areas), Research and Advanced Manufacturing, Planned Oﬃce
Park, Planned Unit Development (non-residential areas), and Planned Industrial Park Use Districts, and
by Special Exception Permit in the Agricultural, A-1 Use District, as well as required development
approvals in the Supplemental Regulations, Process and Administration, Signs, Parking, and Deﬁnitions
sections to regulate the placement and operation of mobile food trucks.
Mr. McCoy read the legal advertisement aloud. He noted the Planning Commission had reviewed this many
times for the better part of a year and said Planning Commission actions included tabling this or sending
to the Board with modiﬁcations.
Mr. McCoy stated the reason for text amendments was to guide folks if they wanted to operate a food
truck, as he displayed a context slide on PowerPoint. He further stated Staﬀ conducted research, worked
with the Planning Commission, showing slides for Staﬀ suggestions and the permit process. He explained
the permit process would be administrative unless by Special Exception Permit in A-1 Use District. He
further explained the food trucks had to adhere to General Standards, Parking, Hours of Operation,
Setbacks, and could not operate after 10:00 PM to stay in compliance with Noise Ordinance. Mr. McCoy
said that the goal was for restaurants not to have food trucks operating too close to them, mentioning
their signage, lighting, noise, trash, water, and waste as concerns. He discussed the added deﬁnitions of

Page 17 of 75

commissary (not a use to be added to any of the use districts), and mobile food unit, noting the deﬁnitions
were taken from the Virginia Department of Health. Mr. McCoy brought up the sign ordinance, mentioning
that A-frame signs were not currently permitted in the sign ordinance. He requested permission from the
Planning Commission to clear that up, either by tabling or sending to Board with amendments.
Mr. Hartman conﬁrmed with Mr. McCoy that mobile food trucks could not have moving signs. He asked
about noise levels, as he conﬁrmed signs could not have ﬂashing lights and the mobile food vendor would
have to have an approved permit.
Mr. McCoy commented that light was not permitted to trespass across property lines; food trucks at a
shopping center required a permit; no permit would be required to serve food at a wedding.
Mr. Hartman wanted to know if food trucks were required to be bonded or insured.
Mr. McCoy responded that while we would not check that, there were required state mandates.
Regarding noise levels in response to Mr. Hartman’s question, Mr. Lindsay read the code, which did not
cite noise decibels.
Mr. McCoy said code did not list decibels, although Daleville Town Center was governed by their own
restrictions, but not by the county.
When Mr. Hartman inquired about how to regulate food trucks, Mr. McCoy remarked that Staﬀ
could hold oﬀ on any decisions until the Planning Commission felt more comfortable with it.
Mr. Foster stated that he thought there would be lots of complaints no matter what. He further stated that
he liked what he saw, and that this was concise.
Mr. Hartman agreed.
Dr. Leﬀel stated that she liked the idea, including addressing existing businesses, as she discussed noise
levels, and suggested aligning A-frame signs within the sign ordinance.
Mr. Lucas stated the entire section in A-frame signs should be stricken. He further stated there was almost
a vagueness to noise as far as the deﬁnition went, that made it almost more user friendly.
Mr. McCoy talked about setbacks for the A-1 Special Exception Permit, which would be 100 feet from
residential structures.
After questioning from Mr. Lucas about an application, Mr. McCoy mentioned that Mr. Lindsay had already
created a draft form, requiring a current vehicle state inspection.
Mr. Lucas mentioned that he wanted to see this ordinance in place because existing food trucks in the
county should be in compliance. He also said he wanted to amend the A-frame sign portion and put it in
with sign ordinance.
Mr. Tyson commented that his former Chief Financial Oﬃcer, now retired, started a food truck business
with his daughter in Los Angeles and they now had seven food trucks. Mr. Tyson requested his review, and

Page 18 of 75

was told that this text amendment was very, very onerous, and was not welcoming to food trucks. Noting
that Los Angeles was an area in which there more than seven million persons that his former Chief
Financial Oﬃcer serviced, he expected that the agricultural areas would have regulations that were much
more inviting. Mr. Tyson said he had already studied this, and went back and studied it from a diﬀerent
perspective. Mr. Tyson commented to Mr. McCoy that he had made it clear that a business was not allowed
to operate unless there was an ordinance to allow them.
Mr. McCoy responded that a use was not allowed unless explicitly permitted in the ordinance.
Mr. McCoy explained that if Mr. Tyson wanted a food truck for a private event at his home, the food truck
operator would not have to get a permit for a private event.
Mr. Tyson asked how to monitor and manage them.
Mr. Lindsay said he could only speak regarding private property with a special event. Noting that was one
of the possibilities for a special event, Mr. Lindsay explained the process.
Mr. McCoy stated the food trucks would be permitted through the Virginia Department of Health.
When Mr. Tyson questioned monitoring and managing the business, Mr. McCoy responded that we only
manage the location and use of the property.
After questioning, Mr. McCoy said that the Zoning Ordinance discussed violations. He explained that a
Code Enforcement Oﬃcer would visit and determine if there was a violation. If so, then the property
owner would be cited.
Mr. Tyson commented that he found #8 potable water, and registered commissary, silly.
After further discussion, Mr. McCoy directed Mr. Tyson to Section 25-601, Deﬁnitions; Mr. Lucas stated
that food trucks had to have good water; and the deﬁnition had been deﬁned.
Mr. Lindsay noted the deﬁnition was based on state code, but not from state code.
Mr. Tyson questioned why a food truck was not allowed A-1, and only by Special Exception Permit.
Mr. McCoy stated that was directly caused by an event in the county. He further stated that having this by
SEP allowed the Planning Commission and the Board to determine if a 1-acre lot versus a 175-acre tract
was possible for a food truck.
Dr. Leﬀel brought up the variability in the A-1 zoning area.
Mr. Lucas commented that A-1 was also a huge section of county, and they needed to know about traﬃc,
parking, and other things.
Mr. Tyson said his friend in Los Angeles, California said we were missing that food trucks were mobile, and
this defeated the whole process.

Page 19 of 75

Mr. McCoy stated that our department was small and further stated the goal of this ordinance was for
these units to operate and to create a fair compromise.
Mr. Lucas stated that Mr. Tyson’s friend’s perspective was Los Angeles, California. He further stated this
ordinance was for Botetourt County.
Mr. Tyson mentioned was no delineation for quantity.
Dr. Leﬀel stated the ordinance was not prohibiting mobile food trucks from A-1; it would be by Special
Exception Permit.
When Mr. Tyson asked about food trucks in the towns, Mr. McCoy explained that the towns have their
own zoning ordinances.
Dr. Leﬀel asked Mr. McCoy to explain the 10:00 PM time limit for the noise ordinance.
Mr. McCoy detailed the procedure by which the Sheriﬀ’s Department implemented the noise ordinance.
He noted that if the Special Exception Permit did not include a condition for the noise ordinance
enforcement, the SEP would be exempt from it.
Concerning lighting trespassing, Mr. Tyson commented that anything lighted trespassed into night sky.
Mr. Foster stated that we require businesses to have downward lighting, as well as for our ball ﬁelds. He
further stated that mobile food trucks needed to have it too.
After Mr. Tyson said it was not possible to not hear a motor or engine running, and we were imposing
something that was not possible, Dr. Leﬀel remarked that the ordinance did not say it had to be silent.
Mr. McCoy mentioned if we received a noise complaint, would ask the complainant to provide audio.
Mr. Foster said we did not consider them currently being illegal.
Mr. Lucas said they were not operating legally if we had a coordinated eﬀort with the Commissioner Of
Revenue; in part because we knew we would soon have this ordinance.
Mr. McCoy food trucks generally pay portion of their sales to the COR.
Mr. Lucas mentioned ﬁling for BPOL and meals taxes. He also mentioned getting something in place so
they can get this in place.
Dr. Leﬀel stated that there was a food truck that would like to operate legally.
Dr. Leﬀel opened the public hearing.
There being no one else to speak, Dr. Leﬀel closed the public hearing.
Mr. Tyson urged another pass before voting.

Page 20 of 75

Dr. Leﬀel noted their appreciation for Mr. Tyson’s questions.
Dr. Leﬀel motioned to recommend approval of the Mobile Food Trucks Text Amendment, with the
removal of 4E, seconded by Mr. Lucas, which was approved 4:1:0:0 with the following recorded vote:
AYE:
NAY:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:

Mr. Foster, Dr. Leffel, Mr. Lucas, Mr. Hartman
Mr. Tyson
None
None

Dr. Leﬀel announced the Planning Commission would next meet on Monday, May 11, 2026 at 5:00 PM
for ﬁeld review and a work session, followed by the Planning Commission public hearing at 6:00 PM.
At 7:31 PM, Mr. Foster motioned to adjourn, which was seconded by Mr. Lucas, and approved with the
following recorded vote:
AYE:
NAY:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:

Mr. Foster, Dr. Leffel, Mr. Lucas, Mr. Hartman, Mr. Tyson
None
None
None

Page 21 of 75

AGENDA ITEM 1.C.

Minutes for the May 11, 2026, Regular Session of the
Botetourt County Planning Commission

Page 22 of 75

Dr. Leffel opened May 11, 2026, Botetourt County Planning Commission field review and work session to
order at 5:00 PM in the Botetourt County Administration Center.
PRESENT:

Dr. Elizabeth Leffel, Chair,
Mr. Sam Foster, Vice-Chair,
Mr. Tim Lucas, Member,
Mr. Steve Hartman, Member,
Mr. Mark Tyson, Member
Mrs. Nicole Pendleton, Director of Community Development,
Mr. Mike Lockaby, County Attorney
Mr. Brandon Nicely, ex-officio member,
Mr. Jon McCoy, Planning Manager,
Mr. Jude Wilson, Planner
Mrs. Laura Goad, Administrative Assistant

ABSENT:

Mr. Matthew Lindsay, Planner

At 5:00 PM, Dr. Leffel called the work session to order and turned the meeting over to Mr. McCoy.
Mr. McCoy displayed a recap on PowerPoint from the April 2026 work session on Power Point, regarding
two proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. He reviewed options, definitions, explained the
freestanding pole versus pole mounted signs while displaying the signs on PowerPoint. Mr. McCoy
explained the 1000 linear feet of centerline with the possibility of a text amendment to grandfather that
to the code. grandfathered/ Jon, goal
After questioning from Mr. Lucas, Mr. McCoy discussed possible amendments to add “and
industrial/commerce parks” to the appropriate ordinances. He further discussed permitting one free
standing sign, as well as the possibility of splitting a sign into two separate signs, plus adding a new
definition of industrial park directory, that would be tied directly to zoning use districts. He noted that all
of these were open for conversation.
When Mr. Tyson asked about the documents reviewed for definitions, Mr. McCoy responded that he used
a Planner’s Dictionary, while Mr. Lindsay looked at other localities.
Mr. Lucas brought up a concern of the sign sizes. He noted that a 50-square foot sign was not necessarily
big, and while he was fine with fixing and repairing signs, he was not a big fan of bumping the size up to
75 square feet.
Mr. McCoy responded that each had a choice of a monument sign, commenting that this would also help
delivery drivers.
Mr. Foster stated that this was looked at a long time ago, and he was concerned with signs being too large,
and they should make signs appropriate for their area.
Dr. Leffel stated she was not upset with 75 square feet signs, although she thought that 10 feet x 10 feet
for signs was vague.

Page 23 of 75

Mr. Hartman questioned if he should participate in signage discussions.
Mr. Lockaby stated that Mr. Hartman should make a declaration that he had an interest in this with three
options, and that he could abstain from discussion if necessary.
Mr. Tyson said that retail needed signs, the county needed to remain friendly to business requirements
and yet not look like Williamson Road. He then questioned why there was no maintenance provision.
Dr. Leffel stated that maintenance was not a Planning Commission decision.
Mr. Lockaby stated that unless the business had a lawful nonconforming status, the Uniform Statewide
Building Codes were in effect. He further stated that if the Board of Supervisors wanted to adopt
maintenance codes with staff enforcing it, they could, however, it had gotten shot down before.
Mr. McCoy requested feedback.
When Dr. Leffel mentioned that she liked Amendment 1, Mr. McCoy asked about the size.
Mr. Tyson asked about roadside signs.
Dr. Leffel and Mr. Lucas commented that this did not jive.
Mr. McCoy presented options, e.g., bringing merged definitions, and that Staff could advertise for a June
Board hearing. He noted the need to consider the Pete store sign as soon as possible.
Mr. Lucas stated he was OK with adding zoning and leaving the sign size.
Mr. Hartman stated he would abstain from discussion.
Mr. Tyson stated it would be really nice to have no roadside signs.
Dr. Leffel stated to they could make those changes and add “pole sign”.
Mr. Lockaby stated it was a first amendment right to have signs.
After Mr. McCoy discussed possibilities of Amendment 1 with a freestanding/pole mounted sign, noting
that the Pete Store wanted a pole-mounted sign stand and to do away with distance as an option;
Amendment 2,would increase linear distance to 2,000 feet or create a Special Exception Permit or both
or combination of Amendments 1 & 2 or Amendment 3, where the definition would change from
“freestanding pole sign” to “highway pole sign”. Anything zoned Industrial, within 500 feet of I-81. Rest of
definitions would be tied to the development site to eliminate visual pole signs for each place. Mr. Lucas
said he was not a fan of pole signs, because they were not really needed with GPS, although he was fine
with the distance being limited. He stated he did not want them spread out across the county, and he
was not a fan of increasing access for pole signs.
When Dr. Leffel asked where the 1,000 feet come from originated, Mr. McCoy responded that it predated
his tenure.

Page 24 of 75

Mrs. Pendleton stated she was happy that the county was restrictive, but a lot of localities were not so
restrictive.
Dr. Leffel commented that she was leaning toward Mr. Lucas’ sentiment.
Mr. Foster stated that the Planning Commission tried to limit signs before as much as we could. He further
stated he did not see the need to change that, and he was not in favor of changing the code.
Further discussion yielded comments that I-81 had enough billboards, the possibility of a work session,
and an interest in seeing visuals.
Mr. McCoy noted the June public hearing items were for a grocery store behind WaWa and two solar
facilities.
Mr. McCoy stated the property was currently zoned Agricultural, A-1 with the use of senior housing
brought up a text amendment for a Youth Transition Facility. facilities. He further stated the ownerinitiated text amendment, from Cave Creek Living Facility wanted to convert from a senior living facility
to home for 18-21 as they aged out of foster care to bridge a gap.
After further discussion, Mr. Lucas suggested find out what other localities have for this use.
At 5:56 PM, Mr. Lucas motioned to recess until the 6:00 PM Planning Commission public with the following
recorded vote:
AYE:
NAY:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:

Mr. Foster, Dr. Leffel, Mr. Lucas, Mr. Hartman, Mr. Tyson
None
None
None

Dr. Leffel reconvened the May 11, 2026, Botetourt County Planning Commission to order at 6:00 PM in
the Botetourt County Administration Center.
PRESENT:

ABSENT:

Mr. Matthew Lindsay, Planner

Page 25 of 75

When your name is called, please go to a microphone or to the podium. Please state your name
and address before making your comments.

•

All comments must pertain to a public hearing on the agenda and directed to the Planning
Commission members.

•

Comments made to or from the audience are not permitted.

•

A time limit of three minutes per speaker will be observed.

•

The Planning Commission welcomes and appreciates public participation. Hearing from our
residents helps us better understand the community’s perspectives and concerns.

•

Page 26 of 75

The Planning Commission will make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors, who will make the
final decision on rezoning, change of conditions, text amendments, and special exception permit
requests.”
Dr. Leffel stated the Board of Supervisors would hear this request on Tuesday, May 26, 2026. at 6:00 PM,
here at the Botetourt County Administration Center.
Dr. Leffel noted that the Planning Commission would meet at the Botetourt County Administration
Building on Monday, June 8, 2026, at 5:00 PM for the field review and a work session.
On motion by Mr. Lucas seconded by Mr. Hartman, the March 9, 2026 minutes were approved 5:0:0:0
with the following recorded vote:
AYE:
NAY:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:

Mr. Foster, Dr. Leffel, Mr. Lucas, Mr. Hartman, Mr. Tyson
None
None
None

Fincastle District: Brandon Wayne & Melissa H. Nicely request a Special Events Facility in the Agricultural
(A-1) Use District with possible conditions. This property is located at 201 Fairﬁeld Road, (State Route
1601) Eagle Rock, and is identiﬁed on the Tax Maps as 5(2)A.
Mr. Wilson read the legal advertisement aloud, as he displayed the zoning and aerial maps on PowerPoint.
He stated this request was located in the Fincastle Magisterial District on the northern end of the county;
the property contained a large 1900s farmhouse, a small garage, a barn, and two smaller sheds, with two
acres of a heavily wooded area. He further stated that all surrounding properties were zoned A-1,
Agricultural. Mr. Wilson explained that the proposed use of this property was for the house to become a
honeymoon location that would be administratively approved as a Short-Term Rental permit, and a Special
Exception Permit for a special events facility as a wedding venue. He further explained there would be one
to four events per month, 360 square foot (2 Car) handicap parking would be located in front of the home.
The main 2100 square foot (23 Car) parking area would be located near the right-of-way of Fairﬁeld Drive,
and they plan to have both parking areas unmarked, and surfaced with gravel and accessed from an
existing paved driveway oﬀ Fairﬁeld Drive, and managed by parking attendants. Mr. Wilson said the
applicant would keep the treeline and vegetative buﬀers. Although no additional landscaping was
currently planned, Mr. Wilson noted a landscaping plan would be required, in addition to a lighting plan.
Regarding sanitation, Mr. Wilson said that portable restrooms would be provided on Friday, and removed
on Monday. Mr. Wilson remarked that no events would be held 10:00 pm. The Special Exception Permit
would serve as the primary use, and Agri-tourism as the secondary use. He then read the following
suggested conditions:
1. The layout of the site shall be constructed in substantial conformance to the conceptual site plan
submitted with the application titled “Site Plan for TM#5(2)A” dated April 13, 2026.
2. Events shall conclude no later than 10pm.

Page 27 of 75

3. Events shall not exceed 50 persons in total.
4. Noise generated by the development shall not violate provisions of the Botetourt County Noise
Ordinance.
5. All other speciﬁcations and general provisions shall be met as required by the Botetourt County
Zoning Ordinance and in no instance shall the zoning conditions exempt a project from any local,
state, or federal development requirements, except where allowed by the Zoning Ordinance.
Although both applicants were present, they did not wish to speak.
Mr. Lucas conﬁrmed that a commercial site plan would be required, even with A-1 zoning.
Mr. Tyson conﬁrmed that events would be held under tents, and on the grass.
Mr. Tyson also asked why the maximum of 50 people, if 10:00 PM time period meant to wind down or
vacate, as he requested more information on the noise ordinance.
Mr. Wilson responded that the applicant wanted to keep this small and low impact, and that the event
would be over because they did not want to disturb their neighbors.
Mr. McCoy answered that the noise ordinance was enforced by the Sheriﬀ’s Department under Chapter
15 as a general prohibition of the County Code. He then stated the condition was suggested by the
applicant.
Mr. Lockaby stated that any ampliﬁed music had to be shut down at 10:00 PM.
Mr. Brandon Nicely, the property owner, said the reason for 10:00 PM was because he and his wife also
lived in the neighborhood, they ﬁt the smaller family venue, and he was also a pastor.
Dr. Leﬀel noted that large tents could be put up in 25 minutes, then removed in 35 minutes.
Dr. Leﬀel opened the public hearing.
There being no one else to speak, Dr. Leﬀel closed the public hearing.
Mr. Tyson said he brought his own presentation and wanted Staﬀ to display it. After further discussion,
he asked if Staﬀ reached out to adjacent property owners, and other property owners. He said we
wanted to be transparent, and yet we acted the opposite way.
Mr. Nicely, the ex-oﬃcio member with the Board of Supervisors, noted that he owned many of the
nearby properties.
Mr. Nicely, applicant, stated he did speak with nearby property owners.
After further discussion, Mrs. Pendleton stated that Staﬀ adhered to the state code on property owner
notiﬁcation.

Page 28 of 75

Concerning the portable restrooms, Mr. Hartman wanted to know if the well/septic was in good working
order, and about the handicapped parking surface.
Mr. Wilson commented that the home would be utilized only for the couple, not wedding guests.
Mrs. Pendleton responded that the building inspector would require an appropriate surface after
conducting inspection(s).
When Mr. Tyson asked about expansion, Mr. Lockaby stated they would have to have a lawful use, and
Staﬀ would look at a change of conditions to see the extent of the change, and not start from the beginning
as with a new request.
Dr. Leﬀel requested Mr. Tyson to provide his slides to Mrs. Goad.
Dr. Leﬀel motioned to recommend conditional approval of the Special Events Facility, seconded by
Mr. Lucas, which was unanimously approved 5:0:0:0 with the following recorded vote:
AYE:
NAY:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:

Mr. Foster, Dr. Leffel, Mr. Lucas, Mr. Hartman, Mr. Tyson
None
None
None

Dr. Leﬀel stated that the motion carried and the public hearing had concluded.
Valley District: RYT LLC requests Special Exception permits for a Convenience store, a Service Station,
and an Electronic Message Board, all with possible conditions, in the Business (B-1), Business (B-3), and
Industrial (M-1) Use Districts, located within the Gateway Crossing Overlay District. These properties
are located at, and adjacent to, 2780 and 2728 Lee Highway (US Route 11) and the Cloverdale Road (US
ALT 220) intersection, identiﬁed on the Tax Maps as 101-175B; 101-176; and 101-175D.
Mr. McCoy read the legal advertisement aloud, as he displayed the zoning and aerial maps on PowerPoint.
Mr. McCoy pointed out that while the parcels were zoned diﬀerently, all three parcels were in the Gateway
Crossing Overlay District that permitted the property owner to request the Special Exception Permits.
Mr. Tyson questioned why the properties did not have to rezoned.
Dr. Leﬀel wanted to know how this would be managed.
Mr. McCoy explained that GCOD allowed this for cohesive development, noting that it streamlined the
process.
Mrs. Pendleton stated that even if rezoned, the properties would still need SEPs.
Mr. McCoy displayed the aerial view of the vacant ﬁnancial institution, the former service station, and the
proposed conceptual site plan. He stated that if approved, the buildings would look like the displayed
conceptual building elevations of the convenience store. Mr. McCoy further stated the applicants were

Page 29 of 75

requesting a SEP for a service station on the back side of the property, and if there was a by-right use that
the applicant preferred, they could do that. Mr. McCoy explained substantial conformance, then displayed
an aerial traﬃc circulation slide; the Exit 150B installation of new traﬃc signal; southbound Exit 150B; I81 to proposed site; current traﬃc circulation to site; and Exit 150B.
Mr. Tyson questioned if there was a non-disclosure agreement.
Mr. McCoy responded that Staﬀ did not know who would go into this space.
Dr. Leﬀel remarked that no one on the Planning Commission was under a non-disclosure agreement.
Mr. McCoy discussed traﬃc conditions and the Level of Service showing a graphic of LOS examples. He
stated that one public comment against this had been received. Recalling that a previous convenience
store request produced comments about the number of convenience stores, Mr. McCoy displayed two
maps from Mr. Lindsay showing 23 existing stores in the Daleville area.
When Mr. Tyson wanted to know how the Dodge and Circle K stores felt about this, Mr. McCoy commented
that he did not know.
Mr. McCoy displayed the Envision 2045 Comprehensive Plan primary and secondary uses, and then
displayed the suggested conditions for all SEPs.
Mr. Foster inquired about the message board, and where or what it would be.
Mr. McCoy replied that the applicants included two EMB signs, one at corner of Rt. 11 and US 220, and
the other at the former Carter Bank & Trust Corner.
Mr. Tyson then requested Mr. McCoy to show his slides ﬁve through ten to be displayed on PowerPoint.
After questioning from Mr. Tyson about an access onto a private road, Mr. Lockaby stated an easement
there would be required easement or a SEP amendment.
Mr. Chris Burns, P.E., of Westwoods Professional Services, stated that the property owner, Mr. Robert
Young and Mr. Luke Young of TPD were also present. Mr. Burns then spoke on behalf of the applicant. He
pointed out that the drive-thru would be a pick-up window that created less traﬃc, and not a drive-thru
window. Mr. Burns further stated that the building elevations were submitted prior to conditions, and
they were happy to do those conditions. Regarding access, and connection to the private drive, Mr. Burns
commented that an easement was already in place, the owner was aware and fully supportive of this
request. He said If it became an issue, it would be worked out privately.
Mr. Tyson suggested that the Virginia Department of Transportation take over the private drive.
Mr. Lockaby stated that because of VDOT street acceptance requirements, that would be cost prohibitive.
Mr. Burns stated that it would be almost impossible to get a road like this into VDOT; this was a common
situation to have shared access; VDOT was in favor of fewer access points; and the advantage of this
project was that two access points would be closed and become more eﬃcient. Regarding the EMB sign

Page 30 of 75

request, MR. Burns requested removing the condition for one EMB be removed or to have only two EMB
signs.
Mr. Lucas stated that he was not a fan of LED signs, because it gave a diﬀerent look. He asked about the
kind of messages that would be displayed and the size.
Mr. Burns responded that they would be ground mounted signs for fuel pricing, which Mr. Lucas conﬁrmed.
Mr. Lucas applauded their eﬀort to close two accesses, although he did not see great access for this lot.
Describing turning around and going back, Mr. Lucas inquired how to handle this realizing people would
cross the lot to go back out, and how wide would the ﬂow be between the two accesses.
Mr. Burns answered that in order to make a left, the drive aisle would be 30’ wide, and that situation was
much better than if the access point was in the middle. He further answered it was much better for the
public, that 75% of trips would be from pass-by traﬃc, already traveling this area, and that they had to
accommodate turn movements.
Mr. Lucas asked what would make a Level of Service C into a LOS D.
Mr. Burns explained that this was currently also C- -,and it was not a big jump to LOS D. He noted that
waiting at the light for 30-45 seconds was a generally accepted Level of Service.
Mr. Lucas asked if the gas tanks from the previous service station had been removed; Mr. Robert Young
conﬁrmed gas tanks had been removed.
Mr. Lucas wanted to know why a SEP for the service station was necessary if one was already there.
Mr. McCoy explained if the service station had been there within last two years, then a SEP not required,
but a number of years had passed since it was last opened.
Mr. Tyson asked if anyone really expected the sidewalks to be used.
Mr. McCoy commented that GCOD required sidewalks, and that pedestrian activity was in the long-range
plans. He further commented that as of now, we get connectivity where we can.
Dr. Leﬀel opened the public hearing.
There being no one else to speak, Dr. Leﬀel closed the public hearing.
Mr. Hartman wanted EMB clariﬁcation.
Mr. Burns requested either removing the condition or allowing for two EMBs.
Mr. McCoy wanted to know if the Planning Commission was ok with them having more than one EMB
(deﬁned use).
When Dr. Leﬀel asked about wanting to allow two signs or removing the condition, Mr. Hartman and
Mr. Lucas indicated they were not in favor of the EMB signs.

Page 31 of 75

Mr. Tyson said that most gas stations have gas pricers as he questioned where they would go.
Mr. McCoy noted the three SEPs requests. He further noted if the Planning Commission did not want
EMB(s), a manual gas price sign would be allowed, saying the condition suggested one.
Mrs. Pendleton stated that for clarity, the oﬀ-site sign on the service station site could only advertise for
the service station.
Mr. Foster stated the if the LED was gas pricer only, that should be ok.
Mr. Tyson mentioned videos on a dynamic gas pricer.
Mr. McCoy stated that the EMB ordinance contained restrictions on the type of movement and timing of
EMB signs.
Mr. Tyson said he wanted to see conditions #5, and #6 eliminated.
Dr. Leﬀel said each of the conditions would be decision by consensus.
Dr. Leﬀel requested that each member respond to the following:
Condition #1 regarding layout. Response: Consensus.
Condition #2 regarding substantial conformance. Response: Consensus.
Condition #3 regarding freestanding sign to be removed. Response: Consensus.
Condition #4 regarding noise. Response: Consensus
Condition #5 regarding window signs. Mr. Foster stated this was discussed several years ago on and he
did not want signs in the window. Mr. McCoy commented that the Zoning Ordinance addressed this.
Mrs. Pendleton stated that this condition originated with Sheetz at the Rt. 779/US 220 intersection and
used with each convenience store application since that time.
After Mr. Lucas said he was ok with removing #5, Dr. Leﬀel said she wanted it to stay. Response:
Consensus that #5 would stay in.
Condition #6 regarding EMB signs. To amend to no more than one sign. Mr. Lockaby issued a reminder
about content neutrality, and if we said it would be for gas prices, then that was a First Amendment
problem.
While Mr. Lucas said he did not want the appearance of EMB signs here, Mr. Tyson was okay with the
EMB signs.
Response: That the condition would stay, with no more than one EMB sign.

Page 32 of 75

Condition #7 no outdoor vending machines. Mrs. Pendleton stated that this condition originated with
Sheetz at the Rt. 779/US 220 intersection and used with each convenience store application since that
time. She noted that the Kroger fuel center had vending machines, and they were not talking about an
ice machine. Instead they were talking about things that created litter.
Response: Mr. Tyson said he wanted this removed; Mr. Lucas said to leave in, and there was consensus.
Condition #8, Zoning Ordinance requirements. Response: Consensus.
Mr. Hartman wanted to know if Electronic Vehicle stations were required.
Mr. McCoy responded that EV stations were not required, and the applicants would not be forced to
install them.
Mr. Lucas commented that this site had previously been used for this type of purpose, this would have
pass-thru traﬃc, and he did not see as being a pull-oﬀ-of-the-interstate request. He further commented
that it was the Planning Commission’s job to see if this met the particular requirements.
Mr. Lucas motioned to recommend conditional approval of the convenience store,
Mr. Hartman, which was approved 5:0:0:0 with the following recorded vote:
AYE:
NAY:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:

seconded by

Mr. Foster, Dr. Leffel, Mr. Lucas, Mr. Hartman, Mr. Tyson
None
None
None

Mr. Lucas motioned to recommend conditional approval of the service station, seconded by Mr. Hartman,
which was conditionally approved 5:0:0:0 with the following recorded vote:
AYE:
NAY:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:

Mr. Foster, Dr. Leffel, Mr. Lucas, Mr. Hartman, Mr. Tyson
None
None
None

Mr. Foster motioned to recommend conditional approval for one electronic message board, seconded
by Dr. Leﬀel, which was approved 3:2:0:0 with the following recorded vote:
AYE:
NAY:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:

Mr. Foster, Dr. Leffel, Mr. Hartman
Mr. Lucas, Mr. Tyson
None
None

Dr. Leﬀel stated that the motions carried and the public hearing had concluded.

Page 33 of 75

Dr. Leﬀel announced the Planning Commission would meet next on Monday, June 8, 2026, at 5:00 PM for
ﬁeld review and a work session, followed by the Planning Commission public hearing at 6:00 PM.
At 7: 51PM, Mr. Lucas motioned to adjourn, which was seconded by Mr. Hartman, and approved with
the following recorded vote:
AYE:
NAY:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:

Mr. Foster, Dr. Leffel, Mr. Lucas, Mr. Hartman, Mr. Tyson
None
None
None

Page 34 of 75

AGENDA ITEM 1.D.

Minutes for the June 02,2026, Closed Session of the
Botetourt County Planning Commission

Page 35 of 75

Dr. Leffel opened June 2, 2026, Botetourt County Planning Commission special called meeting to go into
closed session at 4:00 PM in the Botetourt County Administration Center.
PRESENT:

Dr. Elizabeth Leffel, Chair,
Mr. Sam Foster, Vice-Chair,
Mr. Tim Lucas, Member, Virtual
Mr. Steve Hartman, Member,
Mr. Mark Tyson, Member,
Mrs. Nicole Pendleton, Director of Community Development,
Mr. Mike Lockaby, County Attorney
Mr. Jon McCoy, Planning Manager

ABSENT:

Mr. Matthew Lindsay, Planner
Mr. Jude Wilson, Planner
Mrs. Laura Goad, Administrative Assistant
Mr. Brandon Nicely, Ex-Officio Member

Consideration was then given for Mr. Tim Lucas to electronically join this meeting from Ocean Isles Beach,
North Carolina, due to a personal matter.
Dr. Leﬀel motioned to allow Mr. Lucas virtual access, which was seconded by Mr. Foster and approved
with the following recorded vote:
AYE:
NAY:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:

Mr. Foster, Dr. Leffel, Mr. Hartman, Mr. Tyson
None
Mr. Lucas
None

Dr. Leﬀel motioned to enter into closed session, pursuant to Section 2.2-3711 of the Code of Virginia, 1950,
as amended, to Subsection A.8 - Consultation with legal counsel regarding regulation of solar facilities.
Mr. Foster seconded, which was unanimously approved with the following recorded vote:
AYE:
NAY:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:

Mr. Foster, Dr. Leffel, Mr. Lucas, Mr. Hartman, Mr. Tyson
None
None
None

On motion by Dr. Leﬀel, the Planning Commission exited the closed session and returned to regular
session. Dr. Leﬀel then stated, “BE IT RESOLVED, that to the best of the Planning Commission members’
knowledge, only public business matters lawfully exempt from open meeting requirements and only such
matters as were identiﬁed in the motion to go into Closed Session were heard, discussed, or considered
during the Closed Session.” Mr. Foster seconded and the motion was unanimously approved with the
following recorded vote by roll call:

Page 36 of 75

AYE:
NAY:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:

Mr. Foster, Dr. Leffel, Mr. Lucas, Mr. Hartman, Mr. Tyson
None
None
None

At 5:00 PM, Mr. Hartman motioned to adjourn. Mr. Foster seconded and the motion was unanimously
approved with the following vote:
AYE:
NAY:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:

Mr. Foster, Dr. Leffel, Mr. Lucas, Mr. Hartman, Mr. Tyson
None
None
None

Page 37 of 75

AGENDA ITEM 1.E.

Minutes for the June 08, 2026, Regular Session of
the Botetourt County Planning Commission

Page 38 of 75

Dr. Leffel opened the June 8, 2026, Botetourt County Planning Commission field review and work session
to order at 5:02 PM in the Botetourt County Administration Center.
PRESENT:

Dr. Elizabeth Leffel, Chair,
Mr. Sam Foster, Vice-Chair,
Mr. Tim Lucas, Member,
Mr. Steve Hartman, Member,
Mr. Mark Tyson, Member
Mr. Mike Lockaby, County Attorney
Mr. Brandon Nicely, ex-officio member,
Mr. Jon McCoy, Planning Manager,
Mr. Matthew Lindsay, Planner
Mrs. Laura Goad, Administrative Assistant

ABSENT:

Mrs. Nicole Pendleton, Director of Community Development,
Mr. Jude Wilson, Planner

At 5:00 PM, Dr. Leffel called the work session to order and turned the meeting over to Mr. McCoy.
Mr. McCoy displayed the plat for a proposed eye care facility on TM # 88(10)2.
Mr. Tyson asked about the Gateway Corridor Overlay District within the Traditional Neighborhood
District, and mixed use neighborhood commercial in the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. McCoy explained that the Gateway Corridor Overlay District was not in the Traditional Neighborhood
District.
Dr. Leffel mentioned that the information was in Chapter 7 of the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Tyson wanted to know if the Comprehensive Plan was guiding or binding.
Mr. McCoy stated it was expected to help support land use decisions and binding in the sense that it was
approved by both the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Lockaby stated that roads, parks, water towers, reservoirs, schools, and major utilities needed to be
features shown on plans or found by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors to be in accord
with the Comprehensive Plan in order to be approved. Otherwise it was a general guide as long as it was
a reasonable interpretation of the Comprehensive Plan. If not, that created another hurdle.
A discussion on the quantity of Special Exception Permits arose.
Mr. McCoy stated that Barkett request required only the Planning Commission’s action this evening.
When Mr. Tyson questioned size of Barkett application, Mr. McCoy stated the application had not
substantively changed. Dr. Leffel explained that the request had been tabled, and Mr. Lockaby
commented that the Planning Commission was not voting on the package. He further commented the
vote was on what was in the resolution, and the conditions.

Page 39 of 75

Mr. Tyson said the packages were intended to be so onerous to make it difficult to study and
improvements were needed and to them break up in sections.
Dr. Leffel stated that Mr. Tyson should work with Mr. McCoy and Mrs. Pendleton.
Mr. McCoy explained packages were large because the applicants needed to submit specific information.
Mr. Lockaby suggested exporting bookmarks in Adobe.
Dr. Leffel stated the Barkett package was not substantially different, and if Mr. Tyson felt uncomfortable,
he needed to abstain from the vote.
Mr. McCoy said the Emory solar was incorrectly advertised, and rather than holding a public hearing, Staff
would do what is right and reschedule the public hearing. After discussing it with Mr. Lockaby, the Board
of Supervisors chair and Planning Commission chair, there would be a joint public hearing on June 23, 2026
at 6:00 PM.
Dr. Leffel took a quick poll for June 23rd at 6:00 PM. Mr. Lucas said he was not available, and Mr. Hartman
responded that he would need to attend the meeting by electronic means. Mr. Tyson said that he did not
know if he would be available or not. Mr. Lockaby stated that the state code required a quorum present
in person for an electronic meeting.
Mr. McCoy said the last item on tonight’s agenda was a SEP for large scale retail. He noted that the TIA
was submitted. He further noted that a traffic light at the intersection of Route 220 and Glebe Road was
suggested. He then explained the Traffic Impact Analysis/Virginia Department of Transportation process.
Mr. Lockaby commented that VDOT would require things that we could not.
Mr. Nicely noticed they added an additional lane, as Mr. McCoy noted the Daleville Town Center 2005
plan showed a grocery store in the approximate area.
Mr. McCoy brought up text amendments regarding solar, explaining that Staff was working with the
Berkley Group to look at the current ordinance and Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Tyson asked if they were pro solar?
Mr. McCoy replied that they were neither pro nor anti-solar, just knowledgeable.
After further discussion on Staff’s scope of work, Mr. Tyson brought up other issues.
In response, Mr. Lockaby stated the bond amount was updated every three years and Dr. Leffel stated
the need for an extended work session. Mr. McCoy suggested September or October for a longer review,
as he mentioned that he would meet with them and would get a potential work session date.
Regarding the sign ordinance, and directory sign consensus, Mr. McCoy brought up a public hearing for
that next month, saying there would be a pause on the highway signs. He mentioned the possibility of the
applicants attending to discuss their needs.

Page 40 of 75

At 5: 53 PM, Mr. Foster motioned to recess until the 6:00 PM Planning Commission public, and
Mr. Hartman seconded with the following recorded vote:
AYE:
NAY:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:

Mr. Foster, Dr. Leffel, Mr. Lucas, Mr. Hartman, Mr. Tyson
None
None
None

Dr. Leffel reconvened the June 8, 2026, Botetourt County Planning Commission to order at 6:00 PM in the
Botetourt County Administration Center.
PRESENT:

ABSENT:

Mrs. Nicole Pendleton, Director of Community Development,
Mr. Jude Wilson, Planner

When your name is called, please go to a microphone or to the podium. Please state your name
and address before making your comments.

•

All comments must pertain to a public hearing on the agenda and directed to the Planning
Commission members.

•

Comments made to or from the audience are not permitted.

Page 41 of 75

•

A time limit of three minutes per speaker will be observed.

•

The Planning Commission welcomes and appreciates public participation. Hearing from our
residents helps us better understand the community’s perspectives and concerns.

•

After public comments, we will bring the applicant or their representative back to address any concerns.
The public hearing will then be closed, and we will discuss the matter amongst ourselves and vote on that
particular agenda item.
The Planning Commission will make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors, who will make the
final decision on rezoning, change of conditions, text amendments, and special exception permit
requests.”
Dr. Leffel stated the Board of Supervisors would hear these requests on Tuesday, June 23, 2026. at
6:00 PM, here at the Botetourt County Administration Center.
Dr. Leffel noted that the Planning Commission would meet at the Botetourt County Administration
Building on Monday, July 13, 2026, at 5:00 PM for the field review and a work session.
Dr. Leﬀel requested a motion for approval of the agenda.
As Mr. Tyson mentioned to include in the next Planning Commission meeting, Dr. Leﬀel called point of
order, noting they would ﬁrst need to vote to change this agenda because it was already publicly
advertised.
After further discussion, Mr. Lockaby conﬁrmed with Mr. Tyson that he wanted to add to the agenda.
Dr. Leﬀel requested Mr. Tyson to motion to amend the publicly advertised agenda and the reason.
Mr. Lockaby said that because there were no general, open motions on the agenda, a topic of discussion
would have to be added through a motion, or it would have to be added on the motions period.

Page 42 of 75

Mr. Tyson motioned to add another item to the agenda.
Dr. Leﬀel noted Mr. Tyson’s motion to amend the agenda and asked for the topic.
Mr. Tyson shared that he would like to discuss at July’s next Planning Commission meeting a review and
assessment of the degrees and probabilities of water shortages, arising from continued county growth,
upcoming data center water demands, as well as other potential causations and reviews incurred with
associated plans and related causes versus preventing any potential water shortage problems materializing
during the next 10 to 20 years.
Mr. Lockaby responded that could be added, and probably the best way to address that would be as an
analysis in preparation for a comprehensive plan amendment. He further stated that just studying
something was not really part of the Planning Commission purview, but if Mr. Tyson wanted to revisit the
Utility Planning chapter, which could be considered as part of groundwater discussions, as part of revisiting
that.
Dr. Leﬀel wanted to know if Mr. Tyson wanted to add a topic to the July agenda.
Mr. Lockaby said best way to address this was for analysis of a Comprehensive Plan amendment in the
Utility Planning chapter that could be revisited.
Dr. Leﬀel questioned if this was a change of agenda topic.
After further discussion, Mr. Tyson said he wanted this body to discuss potential water shortages.
Mr. Tyson motioned to amend the agenda for the next Planning Commission meeting in July to ensure
the review of the entire water situation and determine whether or not the potential water shortage
would emerge. Mr. Lucas seconded, which was approved 4:1:0:0 with the following recorded vote:
AYE:
NAY:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:

Dr. Leffel, Mr. Lucas, Mr. Hartman, Mr. Tyson
Mr. Foster
None
None

Mr. Tyson began discussing the water issue; Dr. Leﬀel and Mr. Lucas pointed out it was not on tonight’s
agenda.
Mr. Lockaby noted they were still on the agenda issue, and once the water issue was added to the agenda,
it could be discussed at that time.
Dr. Leﬀel wanted to know at which meeting to discuss the water issue .
Mr. Tyson responded either the July or August Planning Commission meeting.
Mr. Foster stated that this seemed like a board issue, and if the Planning Commission was going to get
involved, we needed direction from the Board for us to initiate.

Page 43 of 75

After further discussion, Dr. Leﬀel asked Mr. Tyson to restate the content.
Mr. Tyson said this was to discuss, review and assess the degrees and probabilities of water shortages
arising from continued county growth, upcoming data center, as well as other potential causations and
review current associated plans and related costs to mitigate or prevent any potential water shortage
problems materializing in the next 10-20 years.
Mr. McCoy added that he was happy to work on getting data and information, although he did not know
if August was within the realm of possibilities. He said there were a lot of diﬀerent organizations involved
with ongoing water supply planning by Roanoke Valley Allegheny Regional Commission, Western Virginia
Water Authority and the Department of Environmental Quality, who might be best suited to bring this
data.
Mr. Tyson stated he did not want information from other organizations, that people were pleading to know
and to get questions answered. He further stated there should be discussion, answering questions, and
alleviating concerns to see how it would go. Mr. Tyson noted that if we were to run out of water, there
would be a huge impact, and people would want to know why the Planning Commission didn’t see this
coming.
Mr. McCoy responded he probably would not have the appropriate information by August but that he
would be happy to work with him on that.
Mr. Tyson said to have a number of people, such as the WVWA to come and speak at the meeting. He then
brought up whether or not Google was going to pay for the water.
After questioning by Dr. Leﬀel about WVWA and RVARC, Mr. Lockaby said that RVARC and DEQ were
mandated by state, were working on an update to regional plans, and it would take at least two to three
years to do the type of plan that Mr. Tyson wanted. Parliamentary procedure-wise, Mr. Lockaby said that
we were talking about having this discussion, and he might be taking this amiss, but based on his
experience developing these plans, this would be a several year process with several people involved and
we needed to ﬁgure out what we were going to do and on what schedule, or if we were going to carefully
look over someone else’s shoulder while they did the planning.
Mr. Tyson then said this was being minimized.
Dr. Leﬀel stated that the Planning Commission did agree to a discussion.
After further discussion, Mr. Tyson motioned to add a structure to the July agenda on the upcoming August
meeting to cover assessment of the degrees and probabilities of water shortages, arising from the
continued county growth, upcoming data center water demands, as well as other potential causations,
and the current associated plans and costs to mitigate or prevent any potential water shortage problems
materializing during the next ten to twenty years. Mr. Lucas seconded, which was approved 4:1:0:0 with
the following recorded vote:
AYE:
NAY:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:

Dr. Leffel, Mr. Lucas, Mr. Hartman, Mr. Tyson
Mr. Foster
None
None

Page 44 of 75

On March 9, 2026, the Botetourt County Planning Commission held a public hearing on the following
item in the Fincastle District: Erryn M. & Virginia A. Barkett (Roanoke Road Solar 1, LLC c/o New Leaf
Energy Inc, lessee) request a Commission Permit in accordance with 15.2-2232 of the Virginia State Code
and a Special Exception Permit for a utility-scale solar energy facility, with possible conditions, in the
Agricultural, A-1 Use District. This 53.40-acre parcel is located on Roanoke Road (US Route 220), adjacent
to 6457 Roanoke Road, Fincastle, and identiﬁed on the Tax Maps as Section 73-157. The public hearing
was closed, and the Planning Commission will render a decision on June 8, 2026.
Mr. McCoy read the legal advertisement aloud. He stated that the public hearing closed March 9, 2026
and had not been reopened since then. He additionally stated that no substantive changes had been made
to the application, but the applicant recently submitted additional conditions to consider. Mr. McCoy read
the new proposed conditions aloud:
•

•

WATER TESTING:
• Before issuance of the building permit for the solar facility (the “facility”), the facility
owner or operator (the “Owner”) will submit to the County a third-party water test
for RCRA 8 metals - Arsenic, Barium, Cadmium, Chromium, Lead, Mercury, Selenium,
and Silver - based on sampling at the perennial stream on-site, both upstream and
downstream, to establish a baseline of the stream quality downstream of the facility.
Within 60 days of the termination of the Construction General Permit (CGP), the
Owner will submit to the County an additional third-party water test (RCRA 8 metals)
from new samples from the perennial stream on-site, both upstream and
downstream, for comparison to the baseline. The Owner will complete a third-party
water test (RCRA 8 metals) at the perennial stream on-site, both upstream and
downstream, every year for 5 years until decommissioning commences and submit
results to the County for review. If the water test results meet or are below the Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ) Voluntary Remediation Program (VRP)
Surface Water Fresh Tier II screening levels, the Owner will obtain subsequent water
testing at the same location every 5 years thereafter and submit such results to the
County for review. Should the water test results exceed the VDEQ VRP Surface Water
Fresh Tier II screening levels, the Owner will obtain additional testing directly
downstream of the facility. If the results downstream of the facility, but not upstream
of the facility, are at or above VDEQ VRP Surface Water Fresh Tier II, the Owner must
work with the County to take remedial actions within 180 days at the Owner’s
expense. All samples will be sent to a Virginia Environmental Laboratory Accreditation
Program (VELAP) Certiﬁed Laboratory. If baseline sampling results indicate that one
or more parameters exceed the VDEQ VRP Surface Water Freshwater Tier II screening
levels prior to development, such baseline conditions shall be deemed representative
of pre-existing water quality. In such an event, subsequent evaluations shall be based
on statistically or technically signiﬁcant increases relative to baseline conditions, and
exceedances of screening levels alone shall not be attributed to the Facility absent
evidence of a Facility-related contribution. A third-party expert will determine what
constitutes "statistically or technically signiﬁcant increases”.
SS SUBSCRIBERS
• If the project secures a place in the Shared Solar program, prior to beginning
commercial operation of the solar facility, the Applicant shall use good faith eﬀorts to
identify residents of Botetourt County, Virginia to voluntarily subscribe its community

Page 45 of 75

solar program ("Local Subscribers").
•

VOLUNTARY PAYMENT - This replaces the previously proposed voluntary payment
• Prior to or within ninety (90) days after the issuance of the building permit for the
solar energy facility (“facility”), the Applicant shall pay to the County a one-time, nonrefundable inspection fee in the amount of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00). This
fee is required for the purpose of defraying the County's costs, fees, and expenses
associated with inspecting, monitoring, and overseeing the facility throughout the
operational life, including but not limited to site inspections, third-party consultant
fees, and administrative costs incurred by the County in connection with ensuring
compliance with this special exception permit and applicable regulations. Payment
shall be made by certiﬁed check, wire transfer, or such other form as acceptable to
the County.
•

The solar energy facility shall use commercially reasonable eﬀorts to implement and
maintain sheep grazing as a vegetative management practice, including securing and
maintaining the resources necessary to support grazing operations, such as an
adequate water supply, appropriate vegetation, and access to qualiﬁed livestock
management services; provided, however, that sheep grazing is expressly contingent
upon acceptance of the "Mixed-Open" stormwater land cover classiﬁcation for the
Project site by the applicable stormwater management authority, as determined no
later than stormwater plan approval; and, if such classiﬁcation is not approved, this
condition shall be deemed null and void.

Mr. Tyson asked where the conditions were located, and why they were not included in the packet.
Mr. McCoy explained these were fresh, and not included in packet.
After further discussion, Mr. Lockaby stated it was up to the Planning Commission to accept or reject as
appropriate.
Mr. Tyson said the applicant was really trying hard. Yet there were always things going on, state
amendments, the Board requiring amendments, and continued delay to the applicant was not fair.
Dr. Leﬀel agreed that the applicant seemed to be trying. She said she reviewed the minutes and the
majority of those were not included as an update.
Mr. Lucas commented that he liked that the applicant added water testing and addressed some of the
issues. He further commented that with the knowledge of July 1st changes, he appreciated the eﬀort,
although he was still torn. He commented that he was pro solar energy to replace fossil fuels, noting that
his preference for putting them in parking lots, not on agricultural land.
Mr. Tyson said his focus was prime farmland, as Dr. Leﬀel noted this property was not prime farmland.
Mr. Hartman appreciated the added conditions, although there was still a lot of uncertainty.
Mr. Foster stated he had nothing else to add, although he appreciated the updated conditions. He further
said he was in favor, and we had to do something other than coal.

Page 46 of 75

Mr. Lucas mentioned that he did not know where the county wanted the Planning Commission to go with
this.
Mr. Lockaby stated the Planning Commission had to act under statutory timeline, and take the rules as
they were with 14 primary considerations. He further stated that renewable energy was not particularly
addressed in Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Lockaby brought up looking at the issue of if this was in compliance
with the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Lockaby mentioned what the state law allowed.
Dr. Leﬀel stated there was no substantial conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Dr. Leﬀel motioned to recommend denial of the Commission Permit, seconded by Mr. Tyson , which
was unanimously approved 5:0:0:0 with the following recorded vote:
AYE:
NAY:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:

Mr. Foster, Dr. Leffel, Mr. Lucas, Mr. Hartman, Mr. Tyson
None
None
None

As she stated there was no substantial conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, Dr. Leﬀel motioned to
recommend denial of the utility-scale solar Special Exception Permit, seconded by Mr. Hartman, which
was unanimously approved 5:0:0:0 with the following recorded vote:
AYE:
NAY:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:

Mr. Foster, Dr. Leffel, Mr. Lucas, Mr. Hartman, Mr. Tyson
None
None
None

Dr. Leﬀel stated that the motion carried and the public hearing had concluded.
Amsterdam District: William S. Emory (OneEnergy Renewables, Veronia Solar VA, LLC, OneEnergy
Development LLC) request a Commission Permit in accordance with 15.2-2232 of the Virginia State Code
and a Special Exception Permit for a utility-scale solar energy facility, with possible conditions, in the
Agricultural, A-1 Use District. This 20.69-acre parcel is located on Catawba Road (Route 779),
approximately 2.6 miles from the Roanoke Road (US 220) intersection with Catawba Road (Route 779),
and identiﬁed on the Tax Maps as Section 87(1)1.
Mr. McCoy stated this request could not be heard due to an advertising error. He apologized, and
conﬁrmed the necessity of a June public hearing date.
After further discussion, Dr. Leﬀel motioned to work with staﬀ and Planning Commission members to table
this request until June 23, 2026 seconded by Mr. Foster, which was unanimously approved 5:0:0:0 with
the following recorded vote:
AYE:

Mr. Foster, Dr. Leffel, Mr. Lucas, Mr. Hartman, Mr. Tyson

Page 47 of 75

NAY:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:

None
None
None

Mr. Lucas stated that he wanted the public to have the opportunity to make public comments.
Mr. McCoy stated that people could email at [email protected] , and Mr. Lockaby stated they
could submit written comments online or by letter.
Amsterdam District: Fralin & Waldron Inc., requests a Special Exception Permit for Large Format Retail
Sales (grocery store) with possible conditions and a Special Exception Permit for a Drive-Thru Pharmacy
with possible conditions, in the Traditional Neighborhood District. This 5.8890-acre parcel is located on
Glebe Road (State Route 675); Broad Street (State Route 1193) and Charter Avenue, and is adjacent to
195 Town Center Street (State Route 1189), and identiﬁed on the Tax Maps as Section 88-33C.
Mr. McCoy read the legal advertisement aloud, as he displayed the zoning and aerial maps on PowerPoint.
He stated this site was bounded by Glebe Road, Charter Avenue, and Broad Street. He displayed
renderings depicting the front of store; varied architecture; the view from Glebe Road; fencing; and the
rear of the site at Glebe/Charter. He then displayed the site layout plan; 255 parking spaces; the drive-thru
pharmacy; stormwater management; required sidewalks; the retaining wall; and access to the site from
the rear for delivery trucks.
After a lengthy discussion by Mr. Tyson pertaining to loading docks for tractor-trailers to back into, the
loading and unloading hours, and the view from nearby new homes, Mr. McCoy explained the original
Daleville Town Center Master Plan. The traﬃc engineers for Gorove Slade and Mr. Bobby Wampler from
Engineering Concepts Inc., brought up the proposed traﬃc light planned for the Glebe Road/Roanoke Road
intersection, in addition to the 60-plus traﬃc models created for the loading dock and tractor-trailers.
Mr. McCoy read aloud following suggested conditions:
1. The layout of the site shall be constructed in substantial conformance with the conceptual site
plan submitted with the application titled “Site Layout Plan” dated 01.23.26.
2. The development of the grocery store shall be constructed in substantial conformance with the
building elevations submitted with the application titled “Daleville Town Center Grocery” dated
05.08.2026
3. The required landscaping shall not use plants considered invasive by the Virginia Department of
Conservation and Recreation and shall use native plants where feasible.
4. Retaining walls shall use materials complementary to the materials used for the grocery store
building.
5. Parking shall not be required to be placed behind the front façade line of the principal structure,
as permitted in Sec. 25-445(4)a of the Botetourt County Zoning Ordinance.
6. A primary entrance is not required to be placed on the rear of the building adjacent to Broad St.,
as permitted in Sec. 25-445(8)a of the Botetourt County Zoning Ordinance.
7. Noise generated by the development shall not violate provisions of the Botetourt County Noise
Ordinance.

Page 48 of 75

8. All other speciﬁcations and general provisions shall be met as required by the Botetourt County
Zoning Ordinance and in no instance shall the zoning conditions exempt a project from any local,
state, or federal development requirements, except where allowed by the Zoning Ordinance.
9. There shall be no outdoor storage of shipping containers at the site.*
Mr. Tyson questioned Mr. McCoy regarding exterior storage.
Mr. McCoy stated that the Supplemental Regulations in the Zoning Ordinance prohibited exterior storage.
Mr. Tyson noted his preference to include a ninth condition to exclude outdoor storage, which the Planning
Commission accepted.
Mr. Tyson pointed out the residential areas on the east of Glebe Road, and north of Broad Street, with
deliveries starting at 8:00 AM.
Mr. McCoy reminded him that conditions could be added.
Mr. Alex Weik, Mr. Asa Harris and Mr. Mike Bailey, Traﬃc Engineer (Gorove Slade) spoke on behalf of the
applicant, Mr. Andy Kelderhouse of Fralin & Waldron. Mr. Kelderhouse was present, but did not speak.
Mr. Hartman wanted to know if two docks were typical, and if a third dock could be added.
Mr. Weik responded that he had not seen a store like this with three docks, as he displayed the illustrations.
Dr. Leﬀel asked what was special about this store, and why not stick to a smaller size.
Mr. Weik answered that this site needed this size of store.
Mr. Foster asked Mr. Bailey about the proposed traﬃc light.
Mr. Bailey replied that VDOT was in favor of it, and they needed to make sure of best ﬁt geometrically.
Mr. Hartman wanted to know about the entrance way to convenience store.
Mr. Bailey mentioned this should be an inter-parcel connection.
After questioning from Mr. Tyson about the chance of multiple rigs, Mr. Wampler responded that they
tested with vehicles in place.
Discussion regarding delivery times, storm delivery logistics and storage containers then followed. As a
result Mr. Tyson noted they would be unaﬀected by adding a condition about no containers.
Dr. Leﬀel opened public hearing.
There being no one else to speak, Dr. Leﬀel closed the public hearing.
Mr. Foster stated he had no concerns with the traﬃc light.

Page 49 of 75

Mr. Lucas stated that some people could walk to get their groceries , and that traﬃc would always an
issue .
Mr. Tyson said the applicants they did an excellent job, the light at the intersection was important, and
he wanted the condition of no containers. He also said that because there were residential areas to
preclude hours of delivery, and he wanted to give residents more peace, he wanted Saturday and Sunday
delivery hours to be at least 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
Mr. McCoy stated the zoning ordinance allowed a 7:00 AM starting time.
Dr. Leﬀel thanked the applicants for their application, as she conﬁrmed that the zoning ordinance did not
allow containers. She then obtained consensus on excluding outdoor storage containers.
After further discussion by Mr. Tyson to limit deliveries 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM, Dr. Leﬀel and Mr. Foster
stated that was not appropriate, the Planning Commission did not limit any of the other deliveries to
area businesses or grocery stores. They further stated they were not in favor of that condition, as did
Mr. Hartman.
Dr. Leﬀel conﬁrmed the conditions would be all the suggested conditions, plus no outdoor storage
containers.
Mr. Hartman motioned to recommend conditional approval, plus the “no outdoor storage” condition
for the large format retail grocery store, seconded by Mr. Foster, which was unanimously approved
5:0:0:0 with the following recorded vote:
AYE:
NAY:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:

Mr. Foster, Dr. Leffel, Mr. Hartman, Mr. Lucas, Mr. Tyson
None
None
None

Mr. Hartman motioned to recommend approval for the drive-thru pharmacy, seconded by Mr. Tyson,
which was unanimously approved 5:0:0:0 with the following recorded vote:
AYE:
NAY:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:

Mr. Foster, Dr. Leffel, Mr. Hartman, Mr. Lucas, Mr. Tyson
None
None
None

Dr. Leﬀel stated that the motion carried and the public hearing had concluded.
Dr. Leﬀel announced the Planning Commission would meet next on Monday, July 13, 2026, at 5:00 PM for
ﬁeld review, followed by the Planning Commission public hearing at 6:00 PM.
At 7:39 PM, Mr. Hartman motioned to adjourn, which was seconded by Mr. Foster and Mr. Tyson, and
approved with the following recorded vote:
AYE:
NAY:

Mr. Foster, Dr. Leffel, Mr. Lucas, Mr. Hartman, Mr. Tyson
None

Page 50 of 75

ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:

None
None

Page 51 of 75

AGENDA ITEM 1.F.

Minutes for the June 23, 2026, Joint Meeting of the
Botetourt County Planning Commission & Board of
Supervisors

Page 52 of 75

Dr. Leffel opened the June 23, 2026, Planning Commission meeting at 6:00 PM in the Botetourt County
Administration Center.
PRESENT:

Dr. Elizabeth Leffel, Chair,
Mr. Sam Foster, Vice-Chair,
Mr. Steve Hartman, Member, Virtual Attendance
Mr. Mark Tyson, Member
Mr. Mike Lockaby, County Attorney
Mr. Brandon Nicely, ex-officio member,
Mrs. Mrs. Pendleton, Director
Mr. Jon McCoy, Planning Manager,
Mr. Matthew Lindsay, Planner
Mr. Jude Wilson, Planner
Mrs. Laura Goad, Administrative Assistant

ABSENT:

Mr. Tim Lucas, Member

Considera on of Mr. Stephen Hartman to meet electronically. Mr. Hartman was on business in Myrtle
Beach, SC.
On mo on by Mr. Foster, seconded by Mr. Tyson, which was approved 3:0:1:1 with the following recorded
vote:
AYE:
NAY:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:

Mr. Foster, Dr. Leffel, Mr. Tyson
None
Mr. Hartman
Mr. Lucas

Amsterdam District: William S. Emory (OneEnergy Renewables, Veronia Solar VA, LLC, OneEnergy
Development LLC) request a Commission Permit in accordance with 15.2-2232 of the Virginia State Code
and a Special ExcepƟon Permit for a uƟlity-scale solar energy facility, with possible condiƟons, in the
Agricultural, A-1 Use District. This 20.69-acre parcel is located on Catawba Road (Route 779),
approximately 2.6 miles from the Roanoke Road (US 220) intersecƟon with Catawba Road (Route 779),
and idenƟfied on the Tax Maps as SecƟon 87(1)7.
Mr. Lindsay read the legal adver sement aloud. He noted the en re site was zoned Agricultural, A-1, as
he displayed the zoning and aerial maps on PowerPoint. He further noted 45% of the parcel to be used for
solar. He displayed conceptual site plan; noted the 150-feet setback, and a maximum of 3,800 solar panels
at 20-feet tall, secured behind a six-foot fence. Mr. Lindsay stated that combining the solar and agriculture
(agrivoltaic) uses would generate one to two vehicles per month; the glint and glare study revealed no
glare was predicted from the site; while the environmental analysis found that the Northern Long-Eared
Bats and Roanoke Log Perch were within two miles, and minimally impacted; the parcel contained
approximately 0.08 acres in the FEMA 100-year floodplain. He then reviewed Virginia Department of
Transporta on’s 2023 report of Average Daily Traﬃc of 3200 Vehicles Per Day along this sec on of road,
and nine crashes. He confirmed that no public water and public sewer would be necessary, Appalachian
Power Company distribu on lines ran along the property frontage, and decommissioning required

Page 53 of 75

submi al of engineered plans. A er no ng the Future Land Use Map and agricultural use, and focusing
on agriculture use, Mr. Lindsay read the following suggested condi ons aloud:
• The proposed development shall be constructed in substan al conformance with the
concept site plan tled, “Vernonia Solar VA, LLC” completed by Timmons Group.
• Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the proposed development shall include
a construc on management plan that details traﬃc control requirements, limits on the
hours of construc on, limits on ligh ng associated with construc on, mi ga on for dust
and burning opera ons, and plans for staging and storage of materials. The construc on
management plan shall be submi ed in addi on to the site plan as part of the required
technical review.
• Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall coordinate with the
Chief of Botetourt Fire/EMS to provide informa on sa sfactory to the Chief to develop an
emergency opera ons plan that contains, at minimum, guidance and per nent
informa on regarding the roles, responsibili es and chain of communica on and
command of the system owner/operator, property owner, and other required subject
ma er experts for preparing for, and safely responding to, a fire, explosion, or other
incident requiring a public safety response at the solar energy facility. During the opera ng
life of the facility, it is expected that this document shall be reviewed annually, with all
per nent informa on updated as required. Training will also be provided as part of the
plan and provided at a frequency determined by the Chief of Fire/EMS and/or as the plan
is updated.
• The SEP approval shall not exempt the use from mee ng the requirements of the
Botetourt County Noise Ordinance.
• All other specifica ons and general provisions shall be met as required by the Botetourt
County Zoning Ordinance and in no instance shall the zoning condi ons exempt a project
from any local, state, or federal development requirements, except where allowed by the
Zoning Ordinance.
Dr. Leﬀel confirmed that Mr. Hartman could hear.
When Mr. Tyson requested the solar text amendment status, Mr. Lindsay responded this was being ac vely
addressed with the county’s consultant. He further responded that the county had 100 days to send to
the Board of Supervisors.
Dr. Leﬀel opened the public hearing.
Ms. Katherine Ha am said that in theory, she was in favor of solar and green energy where it could be
used. She brought up a concern that informa on dropped on Friday, as well as transparency, the speed of
processing without public oversite, and due diligence to maintain integrity of the county, as she asked the
Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission to take me with the decision, and do it safely.
Mr. Tom Williamson of the Fincastle District, noted that he was a Crop, Soils, and Environment Scien st,
who studied at Virginia Tech, with a successful farming opera on here in Botetourt. He stated that he

Page 54 of 75

presented a book of documenta on opposing these facili es at an earlier public hearing. Mr. Williamson
further stated that new technology was making Botetourt County a guinea pig with industrial solar
facili es. He further stated RCS commented this parcel was highly erodible. Mr. Williamson explained the
rain would come oﬀ the solar panels in sheets, and this land should be in conserva on to prevent erosion
that would go into Tinker Creek. He brought up Sec on of the Zoning Ordinance 25-74 that showed a
maximum of 15% lot coverage. Mr. Williamson men oned that the state government had passed new laws
that allowed ba ery storage by right. No ng the close proximity of residences and the Appalachian Trail,
Mr. Williamson asked what would happen if someone hit a panel with a baseball or golf ball.
Dr. Leﬀel requested the applicants to come forward.
Ms. Alyssa Miller, of OneEnergy Renewables, spoke on behalf of the property owner. She was joined by
her a orney, Mr. Jon Puvak of Gentry, Locke, Rakes and Moore of Roanoke; Ms. Annie Wagner, Associate
Director of Development with OneEnergy; and Ms. Jillian S ckley, Engineering Consultant with Timmons
Group. Ms. Miller explained that OneEnergy Renewables was an independent developer of community
and u lity scale solar. She further explained that site suitability, an interested landowner, a large
unobstructed land area, and proximity to electric infrastructure were pathways to obtaining a permit.
Ms. Miller stated that this applica on met all of Botetourt County’s Zoning Ordinance Sec on 25-447
requirements. She further stated this applica on supported goals outlined in Envision Botetourt, aligned
with the Comprehensive Plan, and she would discuss natural environment, land use, and community
services. Ms. Miller said it enhanced exis ng woodlands, preserved waterways, and nearly 20 acres would
be dedicated to pollinator habitat that would improve soil health and boost biodiversity. Discussing the
site plan, Ms. Miller pointed out the long driveway to Catawba Road, with the property oﬀ-set from
Catawba Road. She noted that the panels would be squeezed in toward the middle of site on about nine
acres, and they would adhere to the 150-feet setbacks. Ms. Miller further pointed out the vegeta ve
ground cover with two rows of staggered evergreens, and noninvasive, pollinator-friendly plants,
something that the grazing sheep would enjoy. She stated this was responsible land use by not altering
rural character, with no expanded public water and public sewer, while directly addressing the cri cal need
for more energy. She noted that this use operated passively, generated no traﬃc, would be a 30-40 years
temporary use, then it would be decommissioned, then the land could be returned to farming while
providing the community local, clean energy with a 10-20 percent savings on their electric bill. Ms. Miller
described agrivoltaics, two agricultural uses at one me by u lizing sheep grazing and beekeeping who
might establish honey produc on. She further described the possibili es to host field trips or field day
tours, and mentor those in 4H programs. Ms. Miller then displayed photos from their March 24, 2026
informa on mee ng at the Blue Ridge Library. She also shared solar program informa on for APCO
customers to subscribe to this to save 10-20 percent on their electric bill. She said this would be a good
quiet neighbor, no traﬃc disrup on, no shi work, and would only operate during the day. Ms. Miller
reiterated the preserva on of rural, agricultural character, low profile, natural screening, with no strain
on county infrastructure that aligned with statewide solar legisla on, in compliance with the Virginia Clean
Economy Act, agrivoltaics, and si ng criteria.
Dr. Leﬀel closed the Planning Commission public hearing.
Dr. Scothorn closed the Board of Supervisors public hearing.
Mr. Hartman asked about the pictures and if the solar panels were visible from the Appalachian Trail.

Page 55 of 75

Ms. Miller responded that all of the projects were OneEnergy Renewables, but not all of the pictures that
were displayed were by OneEnergy. She further responded that this project would be visible from a point
on the Appalachian Trail, which was confirmed by the Appalachian Trail review.
Mr. Foster asked if there was informa on on runoﬀ from solar panels and chemicals.
Ms. Miller answered that the solar panels were not porous, did not leach and that they had also been
installed on schools and libraries. She commented that solar panels contained the same components in
your microwave and television, with no forever chemicals. She pointed out that state regula ons
required them to submit very thorough stormwater plans in rela on to erosion. Ms. Miller observed that
once the project was developed, that in many instances, the soil was of be er quality than before the
project.
Mr. Tyson brought up an approved u lity-scale solar facility in Botetourt County that had not yet been
built. He noted other coun es retrea ng from building u lity-scale solar, such as Bedford and Campbell
coun es, ci ng erosion and contamina on. He said that while looking at text amendments, he no ced the
Comprehensive Plan did not embrace solar. Mr. Tyson commented the county contained 89,500 acres of
agricultural land, as he calculated this project would have 3,800 panels or 400 panels per acre. He then
es mated seeing half of our farmland blanketed with solar panels. Mr. Tyson said his major concern was
decommissioning. He men oned that a er construc on, the one visit per month contradicted with
agritourism. He stated that the longer the solar facility operated, the quality of land would decrease.
Mr. Tyson ques oned why this facility was projected to last between 30-40 years, while other proposals
expected 15-20 years. He asked about tradeoﬀs made in how to make this more economically feasible,
and said the decommissioning was vague. He wanted to know who made the determina on of
decommissioning, and the cost to restore the integrity of farmland.
Ms. Miller reiterated that the agricultural land was not technically lost because this was a temporary use;
the county established a detailed solar ordinance as a SEP and not by-right; and that decommissioning
was determined by the company, and not the county. Ms. Miller pointed out that amounts were to be
reassessed every few years.
Regarding decommissioning and the bond, Mr. Lindsay verified the language in code was correct.
Mr. Tyson asked who would pay millions of dollars if the land became contaminated.
Mr. Puvac stated the lease was in place with the landowner, a private contract, and if the land was
contaminated, it was not the county’s interest. He noted the landowner had an interest, and there was
also a Le er of Credit. He explained that the Le er of Credit was money in the bank to build. Regarding
buyer’s remorse from other coun es, Mr. Puvac indicated that some were built without county ordinances
and without bonds in place, but Botetourt had a robust ordinance, and the state had strict erosion
requirements.
Dr. Leﬀel wanted to know about the removal of topsoil.
Ms. Miller replied that the soil would be stored either on site or oﬀ site, then the topsoil would be
returned to the site.

Page 56 of 75

Dr. Leﬀel thanked the applicants for their presenta on addressing a lot of concerns; she stated that the
Comprehensive Plan did not really address solar facili es yet, which would need to be taken care of before
approving a project of this scope.
Mr. Foster agreed, saying there should be addi onal guidelines as to where solar should go, and how close
it should be to a subdivision. Mr. Foster stated he was not opposed to it, that he wanted to keep Botetourt
County green, and we were not suppor ng farmers in that way, especially when they re red, and there
was no one to farm. Mr. Foster ques oned if the land should be used for solar or houses if it wasn’t going
to be farmed.
Mr. Tyson said the Comprehensive Plan needed revision about how solar would aﬀect this county. He read
statement calling for changes to the Comprehensive Plan regarding solar facili es.
Mr. Hartman stated he was not sure the solar facility would meet the Comprehensive Plan, and he was
bothered that this could be seen from the Appalachian Trail.
Mr. Tyson mo oned to deny the commission permit, which was seconded by Dr. Leﬀel, and approved
4:0:0:1 with the following recorded vote:
AYE:
NAY:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:

Mr. Foster, Dr. Leffel, Mr. Hartman, Mr. Tyson
None
None
Mr. Lucas

Ms. Ro man mo oned to deny the commission permit, which was seconded by Mr. Nicely, and and
unanimously approved 5:0:0:0 with the following recorded vote:
AYE:
NAY:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:

Ms. Rottman, Mr. Nicely, Dr. Scothorn, Mr. Michaels, Mr. Snyder
None
None
None

Mr. Tyson mo oned to deny the u lity-scale solar SEP, which was seconded by Mr. Foster, and approved
4:0:0:1 with the following recorded vote:
AYE:
NAY:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:

Mr. Foster, Dr. Leffel, Mr. Hartman, Mr. Tyson
None
None
Mr. Lucas

Ms. Ro man mo oned to deny the u lity-scale solar SEP, which was seconded by Mr. Nicely, and
unanimously approved 5:0:0:0 with the following recorded vote:
AYE:
NAY:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:

Ms. Rottman, Mr. Nicely, Dr. Scothorn, Mr. Michaels, Mr. Snyder
None
None
None

Page 57 of 75

At 7:01 PM, Mr. Foster mo oned to adjourn, which was seconded by Mr. Tyson, and approved 4:0:0:1
with the following recorded vote:
AYE:
NAY:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:

Mr. Foster, Dr. Leffel, Mr. Hartman, Mr. Tyson
None
None
Mr. Lucas

Page 58 of 75

AGENDA ITEM 2.A.

Amsterdam District: Fralin & Waldron Inc. request a
Special Exception Permit for a medical care facility
(vision care), with possible conditions, in the
Traditional Neighborhood District Use District. This
0.876-acre parcel is located on Town Center Street
(State Route 1189), adjacent to 70 Broad Street,
Daleville, and identiﬁed on the Tax Maps as Section
88(10)2B.

Page 59 of 75

0.876

Page 60 of 75

BACKGROUND REPORT
Planning Commission

– July 13, 2026

Board of Supervisors –

July 28, 2026

Prepared by: M. Lindsay

Fralin & Waldron, Inc.; SEP for Medical Care Facility
PROJECT SUMMARY
Fralin & Waldron, Inc proposes the construction of a 6,800 square foot vision care clinic within the
boundaries of the Daleville Town Center (DTC).

STAFF COMMENTS
Daleville Town Center (DTC) is a master-planned Traditional Neighborhood Development that has been in
development since the early 2000s. This site is one of the last undeveloped portions of the planned
development. This location is identified as “Mixed Use Neighborhood Commercial” on the Future Land Use
map in the County’s comprehensive plan. The proffered conditions of DTC were updated in 2024 with the
approval of the convenience store SEP on the corner of Glebe Road and Roanoke Road (US 220). Those
proffered conditions amended some portions of the Core, Workplace, and Edge locations of the DTC master
plan and do not impact this proposed development. This site is located entirely within the Core designation
of the DTC Master Plan.
Due to the site’s designation as “Core”, medical facilities are not allowed by-right and require a Special
Exception Permit (SEP).
The 2005 Daleville Town Center Master Plan references medical facilities as an allowed use within the
“Core” areas. Though no specific medical facility type was indicated, the plan stated that a medical facility
would “fit well with the development.”

PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning Commission may make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors to approve, to approve
with conditions, or to deny the special exception permit.

LEGAL ADVERTISEMENT
Amsterdam District: Fralin & Waldron Inc. request a Special Exception Permit for a medical care facility (vision
care), with possible conditions, in the Traditional Neighborhood District Use District. This 0.876-acre parcel is
located on Town Center Street (State Route 1189), adjacent to 70 Broad Street, Daleville, and identified on the
Tax Maps as Section 88(10)2B.

EXISTING CONDITIONS AND BACKGROUND
The proposed development is on a 0.87-acre parcel located in DTC. It is bounded on one side by a public
road (Town Center Street) to the east, by the Hampton Inn to the north, apartments to the west, and the DTC
square to the south. The site is flat with very little elevation change, in any, across the site.

Page 61 of 75

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
As part of this application, Fralin & Waldron has proposed constructing a nearly 7,000-square-foot, twostory vision care facility within the Daleville Town Center (DTC), located along Town Center Street. The
building would include 22 exam rooms distributed across both floors, along with a new sidewalk connecting
the site to the adjacent Hampton Inn. A single access point would serve the 51 proposed parking spaces,
and the facility would connect to existing public water, sewer, and power infrastructure. The clinic is
expected to operate primarily Monday through Friday, from 7:30 AM to 5:30 PM, with the possibility of limited
Saturday hours.
The applicant has characterized the facility as meeting an essential healthcare need for Daleville and
Botetourt County more broadly, particularly the growing demand for vision care among the area's aging
population. Locating this medical use within the DTC supports the development's broader goal of creating
a walkable, mixed-use environment where residents and employees can access routine healthcare close
to home. The proposal is also consistent with the original intent of the DTC rezoning, which specifically
identified medical care facilities as appropriate and compatible uses for this portion of the development.

ADJACENT AND SURROUNDING USES/ZONING
Zoning
North

South

East

West

Transitional

Land Use
Neighborhood

Development

Neighborhood

Development

Neighborhood

Development

(TND)
Traditional
(TND)
Traditional
(TND)
Traditional

Hotel (Hampton Inn)

Civic (DTC Square)
Restaurant (Dairy Queen)
Bank (Bank of Botetourt)

Neighborhood

(TND)

Development

Multi-Family Residential

2025 Comprehensive Plan
This parcel is found within the “Mixed Use Neighborhood Commercial” Future Land Use category. This area
is intended to appeal to a wide variety of commercial uses, including automotive-oriented and pedestrian
accessible services. The majority of developed space in this area should be commercial. Primary uses may
include retail shops, offices, and civic spaces. Development goals in this area are to reduce or restrict
multiple access points off major travel routes to preserve capacity of road networks and to construct
pedestrian accommodation along US Route 220 to connect existing residential and commercial uses.
The development as proposed is in line with the Mixed Use Neighborhood Commercial future land use
category as outlined in the comprehensive plan.

TRAFFIC
VDOT traffic data from 2020 reports that along Town Center Boulevard there is an ADT (Average Daily
Traffic) volume of 2500 vehicles per day.

Fralin & Waldron, Inc. SEP
Page 2 of 4

Page 62 of 75

VDOT has reviewed this request and has made the following comments:

•

A Land Use Permit will be required if a new entrance is needed from the VDOT right-of-way
or for the change in use of an existing entrance.

•

If any future modifications to existing entrances or installations of new entrances are
planned, the VDOT Road Design Manual, Appendix F: Access Management Design
Standards for Entrances and Intersections must be adhered to where applicable for
commercial entrances. This includes, but is not limited to, entrance spacing and intersection
sight distance. Intersection sight distance must be field verified, and measures taken to
ensure the minimum required standards can be met. An Access Management Exception
must be submitted if entrance spacing requirements cannot be met.

•

Please include trip generation calculations for this use with the first official plan submittal to
verify traffic impacts from this development.

•

The Department will not issue an approval of the plans or Land Use Permit until the locality
approves this Special Exception request. In addition, information regarding any changes to
the existing drainage system should also be included for review.

FIRE AND RESCUE
This site is located in the Troutville emergency rescue zone. Troutville Volunteer Fire and Rescue is located
3.5 miles away and will serve this property.

FLOODPLAIN
These parcels are not located within the FEMA regulatory floodplain

PUBLIC COMMENT
At the drafting of this background report the Community Development Office has not received public
comments on this matter.

SUGGESTED CONDITIONS
•

The property shall be developed in substantial conformance with the concept plan entitled “Daleville
Town Center Eye Care Center” prepared by Engineering Concepts, Inc. dated March 27, 2026, subject
to any changes required during the comprehensive site plan review process.

•

The proposed building shall be developed in substantial conformance with the elevation plans
entitled “Daleville Center Eye Care Center” prepared by Engineering Concepts, Inc. dated March 27,
2026.

•

The required landscaping shall not use plants considered invasive by the Virginia Department of
Conservation and Recreation and shall use native plants where feasible.

•

Noise generated by the development shall not violate provisions of the Botetourt County Noise
Ordinance.

Fralin & Waldron, Inc. SEP
Page 3 of 4

Page 63 of 75

•

All other specifications and general provisions shall be met as required by the Botetourt County
Zoning Ordinance and in no instance shall the zoning conditions exempt a project from any local,
state, or federal development requirements, except where allowed by the Zoning Ordinance.

DRAFT MOTIONS

SPECIAL EXCEPTION PERMIT – MEDICAL CARE FACILITY
APPROVAL
I move that the Medical Care Facility Special Exception Permit for the property of Fralin and Waldron, Inc.
be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation of approval with the conditions included
in staff’s background report// OR approval subject to the following conditions as included in Staff’s
background report:
1. (list conditions if modified)
2. ….
This recommendation is made on the basis that the requirements of Article V, Division 6 of the Zoning
Ordinance have been satisfied, and that the proposal would serve the public necessity, convenience,
general welfare and is good zoning practice.

DENIAL
I move that the Medical Care Facility Special Exception Permit for the property of Fralin and Waldron Inc. be
forwarded to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation of denial. Based upon Zoning Ordinance
Article V, Division 6, the following items have not been satisfied:
1.
2. (list findings/reasons for denial)

Fralin & Waldron, Inc. SEP
Page 4 of 4

Page 64 of 75

Statement of Justification
The proposed project is a vision care clinic to be located within the Daleville Town Center
(DTC), positioned along the primary commercial corridor of Town Center Street. This
location is well-suited for the proposed use and aligns with the overarching goal of the DTC
to provide a walkable, mixed-use development that serves the daily needs of residents,
employees, and visitors within the community.
Vision care services represent an essential need for a broad segment of the population,
with demand increasing significantly among aging residents. Locating this use within the
DTC supports convenient access to healthcare services and reduces the need for residents
to travel outside the development for routine medical care.
The original DTC rezoning established three general use areas: the “Edge” area,
“Workplace” area and the “Core” area. The Workplace and Core area are divided along
Town Center Street adjacent to this project. A medical care facility was permitted by right
within the Workplace area and identified as a Special Exception use within the Core area.
The original rezoning narrative specifically anticipated that certain uses, including medical
care facilities, may be requested in the future and would be appropriate within the Core of
the development noting: “While there are no specific users identified for the development
at this time, it is anticipated that several of the uses listed in this section may be requested
at a future date and would fit in well with the development. Some potential uses may
include a private school or medical care facility.” As such, the proposed use is consistent
with the original intent and vision of the approved zoning.
The proposed clinic is expected to operate Monday through Friday between the hours of
7:30 AM and 5:30 PM, with potential limited Saturday hours based on community demand.
These hours are compatible with surrounding commercial uses and are not anticipated to
generate late evening or nighttime activity.
Site lighting will be designed in accordance with Botetourt County Zoning Regulations and
consistent with existing development within the DTC. Lighting will be directed and shielded
to minimize glare and impacts on adjacent properties. Buffering and site design elements
will be incorporated as necessary to ensure compatibility with neighboring uses.
The proposed use is not expected to adversely impact adjacent properties. Traffic
generation will be similar to or less than other permitted commercial uses within the DTC,
and the existing road network is designed to accommodate such uses. The project will
connect to existing public water and sewer infrastructure, which was planned and sized to
serve the full buildout of the Town Center.

Page 65 of 75

Impacts on public services, including schools, parks and recreation, and emergency
services, are expected to be negligible. The use does not generate school-aged population
and has minimal demand for park facilities. Fire and rescue services will be adequately
supported through existing infrastructure and access.
While the project is consistent with the original rezoning framework and does not create
additional impacts beyond those previously evaluated, proffers are being offered to restrict
the special exception to this specific medical care use.
In summary, the proposed vision care clinic is a compatible, low-impact use that fulfills an
anticipated need within the Daleville Town Center and aligns with the long-term vision for a
cohesive, service-oriented mixed-use development.

Page 66 of 75

EYE CARE CENTER

DALEVILLE TOWN CENTER
BOTETOURT COUNTY, VA

·
·
·
·
·
·
·
§

·
·
9

~6,800SF

3/27/26

Page 67 of 75

AGENDA ITEM 2.B.

The Botetourt County Board of Supervisors propose
text amendment to revise various sections of Chapter
25, Zoning of the Botetourt County Code that would
amend standards of the sign ordinance by deﬁning
and adding an “Industrial Park Directory” sign type.

Page 68 of 75

Planning Commission – July 13, 2026

TO:

Dr. Beth Leffel, Chairwoman, Planning Commission
Members, Planning Commission

Gary Larrowe, County Administrator
David Moorman, Deputy County Administrator
Nicole Pendleton, Director of Community Development
Mike Lockaby, County Attorney

FROM:

Matthew Lindsay, Planner II

DATE:

July 01, 2026

SUBJECT:

Industrial Park Directory Signs Text Amendment

STAFF COMMENT:
Pursuant to Section 25-581.1 of the Zoning Ordinance, the Board of Supervisors or the
Planning Commission is authorized to initiate amendments to the text of the ordinance.
County staff have identified that the current sign ordinance does not expressly address the
construction and replacement of directory-style signage serving the County’s industrial and
commercial parks. This gap in the ordinance came to light during review of the replacement
of the East Park Commerce Center directory sign at the intersection of Cloverdale Road
(Alt-220) and East Park Drive, when Economic Development staff requested clarification from
Community Development staff.
In February 2026, the Board of Supervisors formally directed staff to prepare a text
amendment to establish clear, content-neutral standards for such directory signs. The
proposed text amendment outlined here constitutes a portion of that authorized work, with
amendments addressing additional sign types to be forthcoming.
The proposed amendment seeks to establish a new sign classification, designated as
"Industrial Park Directory," which is intended to provide aesthetically appropriate and nonobtrusive means of identifying and advertising businesses operating within the County's most
economically productive commercial and industrial areas. This classification largely builds
upon the standards and requirements already outlined within the existing County Sign
Ordinance. The following text sets forth the proposed amendment in detail, addressing
allowable sign dimensions and permitted zoning districts, and shall serve to amend the
County's supplemental regulations as codified under § 25-462.

Page 69 of 75

PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT:
ARTICLE IV SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS, ARTICLE IV, DIVISION 1, SEC. 25-462. Sign
Standards and Regulations.
1) Industrial Park Directory. Signs identifying industrial parks with multiple tenants shall
be limited to one (1) freestanding sign, either single or double faced, per frontage on
a state-maintained road, each sign not to exceed fifty (50) square feet per side. This
applies to directory signs located in M-1, M-2, M-3, and RAM districts.

DRAFT MOTIONS
TEXT AMENDMENTS

APPROVAL
I move to send these text amendments to the Board of Supervisors with the recommendation
of approval, as stated in staff’s memo,
This recommendation is made on the basis that the requirements of Section 25-581.1 of the
Zoning Ordinance have been satisfied, and that the proposal would serve the public
necessity, convenience, general welfare, and is good zoning practice.

DENIAL
I move to send these text amendments to the Board of Supervisors with the recommendation
of denial, as stated in staff’s memo, Based upon Zoning Ordinance Section 25-581.1 the
following items have not been satisfied:
1.
2. (list findings/reasons for denial)

Page 70 of 75

AGENDA ITEM 2.C.

Amsterdam District: The Western Virginia Water
Authority requests a commission permit, in
accordance with Section 15.2232 of the Code of
Virginia and Section 25-576 – Commission Permit
(“2232 Review”) of the Botetourt County Code, for a
capital improvements project involving the
construction of approximately 3,800 feet of waterline
that will loop two existing water lines and provide
more consistent water pressure/service within the
existing system. This project is located within the
right-of-way of Etzler Dr (State Rt. 672) and Victoria
Rd. (State Rt. 1050) and identiﬁed on the Tax Maps as
Section 88-20H and 88-20WTR.

Page 71 of 75

Planning Commission – July 13, 2026

TO:

Dr. Beth Leffel, Chairwoman, Planning Commission
Members, Planning Commission

Gary Larrowe, County Administrator
David Moorman, Deputy County Administrator
Nicole Pendleton, Director of Community Development
Mike Lockaby, County Attorney

FROM:

Matthew Lindsay, Planner II

DATE:

July 01, 2026

SUBJECT:

Dal-Nita Hills Waterline Capital Improvement Project Request for
Commission Permit

STAFF COMMENT:
Planning Context:
The Western Virginia Water Authority (WVWA) has submitted a request for a Commission
Permit under Chapter 25, Article V, Division 5, Section 25-576 of the County Code. This section
implements Virginia Code § 15.2-2232, which requires that public facilities — including water
and sewer infrastructure — be reviewed by the Planning Commission for general conformity
with the County's Comprehensive Plan before construction. This is a procedural land-use
review, not a construction permit; the Commission's role is limited to determining whether the
facility's general location and character align with the County’s adopted Comprehensive Plan.
Proposed Development:
WVWA proposes roughly 4,000 linear feet of new waterline running from its water treatment
plant at Greenfield Recreation Park, along Etzler Road, and across Victoria Drive. The line will
consist of approximately 3,250 LF of 12-inch main and 750 LF of 8-inch main, along with
pressure-reducing valves, four fire hydrants, and connection to the existing distribution
system. VDOT-standard pavement restoration will follow any road-cut work.
The stated purpose is twofold: to "loop" the system for more reliable pressure/service, and
to transition Dal-Nita Hills subdivision residents off an aging well system onto the Authority's
public water network.
A map outlining the proposed work corridor can be found in the attached documents.

Page 72 of 75

DRAFT MOTIONS
TEXT AMENDMENTS

APPROVAL
I move to approve this Commission Permit for the Western Virginia Water Authority.
This decision is made on the basis that the requirements of Section 25-576 of the Zoning
Ordinance have been satisfied, and that the proposal would serve the public
necessity, convenience, general welfare, and is good zoning practice.

DENIAL
I move to deny this Commission Permit for the Western Virginia Water Authority. Based
upon Zoning Ordinance Section 25-576 the following items have not been satisfied:
1.
2. (list findings/reasons for denial)

Page 73 of 75

B ·•
C

Zoning Map Amendment Application and
Special Exception Permit Application

Botetourt County Community Development Planning & Zoning
57 S. Center Drive, Daleville, VA 24083
P: 540.928.2080
E: [email protected]

BOTETOURT COUNTY
VIRGINIA

Date: """"'
rro the Botetourt County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors, I/We request to:
"Please check all that apply to your requesV
Rezoning
Special Exception Permit(s) D Change in Proffers or Conditions [i] Commission Permit (15.2-2232) I!)
Property Owner Information

□

Property Owner Name:

Western Virginia Water Authority

Mailing Address, with zip code:

Attn: Joseph Arthur - 601 S. Division St, Roanoke VA 24011

Property and Owner Information (If additional owners)
Name:
N/A - VDOT Righ t-of-Way
Mailing Address with zip code:

Phone#:
Email:

Property Information - Include GIS-qualitv map showinq affected area, current zonlnq and proposed request
Physical Address of Property: V
own:
ip:
T
Daev1
I 'IIe
DOT Right-of-Way
F
!State Route #: 672
Tax Map Number(sl: N/A - VDOT Right-of-Way
Legal Description or Subdivision Name:

Instrument Number or Deed Book/Page#:

Existing zoning:

rrotal Acreage:

Magisterial District: Vall

N/A

creage for request:
r

Proposed zoning:
Proposed Special
!
Exception Permit:
!This property is currently served by: Well D Septic D Public or Community Water
Public sewer

□
If request is approved by Board of Supervisors, this property will be served by: Well □ Septic □
Public or Community Water D
Proposed Land -Use:

Public sewer D

□

Does this request need a state-maintained road(sl? If yes, please check the Commission Permit box above.

Does this request need a private road(sl in the Residential, R-3 or R-4 Use Districts? If yes, please check the Commission Permit
�nd Special Exception Permit boxes above.
Does this request meet the Comprehensive Plan: Yes Iii No D Please note the category shown on the Future Land Use Map.
Please explain the reason for this request:

See attache d narrative and construction plans for the Dal-Nita
Hills Waterline Cap ital Improveme nt Proje ct

Statement of Justification: (a separate page may be used): Please explain why this project is requested. Also, how the proposed project
will affect this property and adjoining properties. Include hours of operation, outdoor Lighting, buffering, proposed proffers, effects on
public services such as water and sewer, roads, schools, parks and recreation, fire and rescue, with any other relevant information.

Botetourt County Community Development
AppLication for Zoning Map Amendment Application, Special Exception Permit, and Commission Permit Application

www.botetourlva.gov

Page 74 of 75

ENGINEERING SERVICES

June 3, 2026
Ms. Nicole Pendleton
Director
Botetourt County
Department of Community Development
57 S. Center Drive
Daleville, VA 24083
Re:

Dal-Nita Hills – Waterline
Western Virginia Water Authority Capital Improvement Project

Dear Ms. Pendleton,
This letter is to serve as notice that the Western Virginia Water Authority formally submits a request for
a Commission Permit per the Code of the County of Botetourt, Virginia – Chapter 25 Zoning, Article V.
Process and Administration, Division 5 – Required Development Approvals, Section 25-576.
The Dal-Nita Hills waterline project consists of nearly 4,000 LF of waterline traversing from the
Authority’s water plant within the Greenfield Recreation Park, up Etzler Road and then across Victoria
Drive extending nearly 4,000 LF. The new waterline will “loop” the existing infrastructure and provide
more consistent water pressure/service within the system for the residents within the Dal-Nita Hills
subdivision. Those residents will then be transitioned off of the Authority’s well system that currently
serves them. In detail, the project consists of construction of approximately 3,250 LF of 12” water main,
750 LF of 8" water main, multiple individual pressure reducing valves, 4 fire hydrants and associated
appurtenances, connection to the existing water system, and associated Virginia Department of
Transportation pavement restoration. This new waterline is intended to be a distribution line for our
water system network.
The Authority hopes the Botetourt County Planning Commission and ultimately the Botetourt County
Board of Supervisors find this request for a public utility extension to be acceptable and in line with the
planned vision for the residents of the County.
Sincerely,
WESTERN VIRGINIA WATER AUTHORITY
CC:

Project File

Our Mission Is Clear
601 South Jefferson Street  Suite 300  Roanoke, VA 24011
www.westernvawater.org

Page 75 of 75

SHEET 10

1" = 200'

SHEET 11

SHEET LAYOUT AND FIRE HYDRANT LOCATION
SHEET:

3 OF:

SITUATED IN
BOTETOURT COUNTY, VIRGINIA
4
5

WESTERN VIRIGINIA WATER AUTHORITY

PREPARED FOR

DAL-NITA HILLS
WATERLINE EXTENSION
3

8
SHEET 9

DENOTES 500' FH RADIUS

DESCRIPTION

SHE

DATE

DENOTES PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT LOCATION
DENOTES EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT LOCATION

SCALE: 1" = 200'
200'

SHE

D
ROA
LER 72
ETZ UTE 6
RO
NO.

6
GREENFIELD
RECREATION PARK
REVISIONS

0
MB

PROJECT OVERVIEW

200'

E
IV 150
R
D E
IA UT
R
O O
CT C R
I
V SE
VA

E
H
S
4

w:\drawings\2025\2025-224\01-cad\01-engineering\02-design\25224-comp01.dwg

D
ROA
LER 72
ETZ UTE 6
RO

DATE:

SCALE:

JANUARY 20, 2026
AS SHOWN

COMM. NO.:

2025-224

NO F
T OR
FO R
Lumsden Associates, P.C.
R EV
ENGINEERS | SURVEYORS | PLANNERS
CO IE
W
NS O
TR N
BRAMBLETON AVENUE
PHONE: (540) 774-4411
UC LY 4664
P.O. BOX 20669
FAX: (540) 772-9445
TI
ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018
EMAIL: [email protected]
O
N

03-nd02

Read the agenda documentPrimary source ↗

The government’s own published record — read it yourself, then decide what to do about it.

Data centers in DalevilleLocal report →

The facilities, the coverage, and the local record for this community.

Outcome

Not yet recorded. The record stays open — outcomes are added as minutes and vote results are published.

Provenance

Where this record came from. Every source is listed, permanently.

Agenda Watch · Sep 1, 2026

Permanent ID DKT-2026-001521 — this record is never deleted.

Record history

Every change to this record, logged as it happened.

Sep 1, 2026 Filed on the Docket
Sep 1, 2026 Full document archived — public record

← The full Docket · every meeting, vote, and action on the permanent record · also in the National Record Index.

On the agenda: Daleville meeting — data center (Jul 13)

The agenda, word for word

Provenance

Record history

More on the Docket in Virginia